search
element with form functionality — Last Updated 1 December 2021Support in all current engines.
Web browsers, for security and privacy reasons, prevent documents in different domains from affecting each other; that is, cross-site scripting is disallowed.
While this is an important security feature, it prevents pages from different domains from communicating even when those pages are not hostile. This section introduces a messaging system that allows documents to communicate with each other regardless of their source domain, in a way designed to not enable cross-site scripting attacks.
The postMessage()
API can be used as a tracking
vector.
For example, if document A contains an iframe
element that contains document B,
and script in document A calls postMessage()
on the
Window
object of document B, then a message event will be fired on that object,
marked as originating from the Window
of document A. The script in document A might
look like:
var o = document. getElementsByTagName( 'iframe' )[ 0 ];
o. contentWindow. postMessage( 'Hello world' , 'https://b.example.org/' );
To register an event handler for incoming events, the script would use addEventListener()
(or similar mechanisms). For example, the script in document B
might look like:
window. addEventListener( 'message' , receiver, false );
function receiver( e) {
if ( e. origin == 'https://example.com' ) {
if ( e. data == 'Hello world' ) {
e. source. postMessage( 'Hello' , e. origin);
} else {
alert( e. data);
}
}
}
This script first checks the domain is the expected domain, and then looks at the message, which it either displays to the user, or responds to by sending a message back to the document which sent the message in the first place.
Use of this API requires extra care to protect users from hostile entities abusing a site for their own purposes.
Authors should check the origin
attribute to
ensure that messages are only accepted from domains that they expect to receive messages from.
Otherwise, bugs in the author's message handling code could be exploited by hostile sites.
Furthermore, even after checking the origin
attribute, authors should also check that the data in question is of the expected format.
Otherwise, if the source of the event has been attacked using a cross-site scripting flaw, further
unchecked processing of information sent using the postMessage()
method could result in the attack being
propagated into the receiver.
Authors should not use the wildcard keyword (*) in the targetOrigin argument in messages that contain any confidential information, as otherwise there is no way to guarantee that the message is only delivered to the recipient to which it was intended.
Authors who accept messages from any origin are encouraged to consider the risks of a denial-of-service attack. An attacker could send a high volume of messages; if the receiving page performs expensive computation or causes network traffic to be sent for each such message, the attacker's message could be multiplied into a denial-of-service attack. Authors are encouraged to employ rate limiting (only accepting a certain number of messages per minute) to make such attacks impractical.
window.postMessage(message [, options ])
Posts a message to the given window. Messages can be structured objects, e.g. nested objects
and arrays, can contain JavaScript values (strings, numbers, Date
objects, etc.),
and can contain certain data objects such as File
Blob
,
FileList
, and ArrayBuffer
objects.
Objects listed in the transfer
member
of options are transferred, not just cloned, meaning that they are no longer usable
on the sending side.
A target origin can be specified using the targetOrigin
member of
options. If not provided, it defaults to "/
". This default
restricts the message to same-origin targets only.
If the origin of the target window doesn't match the given target origin, the message is
discarded, to avoid information leakage. To send the message to the target regardless of origin,
set the target origin to "*
".
Throws a "DataCloneError
" DOMException
if
transfer array contains duplicate objects or if message could not be
cloned.
window.postMessage(message, targetOrigin [, transfer ])
This is an alternate version of postMessage()
where the target origin is specified
as a parameter. Calling window.postMessage(message, target, transfer)
is
equivalent to window.postMessage(message, {targetOrigin,
transfer})
.
When posting a message to a Window
of a browsing context
that has just been navigated to a new Document
is likely to result in the message not
receiving its intended recipient: the scripts in the target browsing context have to
have had time to set up listeners for the messages. Thus, for instance, in situations where a
message is to be sent to the Window
of newly created child iframe
,
authors are advised to have the child Document
post a message to their parent
announcing their readiness to receive messages, and for the parent to wait for this message before
beginning posting messages.
Support in all current engines.
Channel_Messaging_API/Using_channel_messaging
Support in all current engines.
To enable independent pieces of code (e.g. running in different browsing contexts) to communicate directly, authors can use channel messaging.
Communication channels in this mechanism are implemented as two-ways pipes, with a port at each end. Messages sent in one port are delivered at the other port, and vice-versa. Messages are delivered as DOM events, without interrupting or blocking running tasks.
To create a connection (two "entangled" ports), the MessageChannel()
constructor is called:
var channel = new MessageChannel();
One of the ports is kept as the local port, and the other port is sent to the remote code, e.g.
using postMessage()
:
otherWindow. postMessage( 'hello' , 'https://example.com' , [ channel. port2]);
To send messages, the postMessage()
method on
the port is used:
channel. port1. postMessage( 'hello' );
To receive messages, one listens to message
events:
channel. port1. onmessage = handleMessage;
function handleMessage( event) {
// message is in event.data
// ...
}
Data sent on a port can be structured data; for example here an array of strings is passed on a
MessagePort
:
port1. postMessage([ 'hello' , 'world' ]);
In this example, two JavaScript libraries are connected to each other using
MessagePort
s. This allows the libraries to later be hosted in different frames, or
in Worker
objects, without any change to the APIs.
< script src = "contacts.js" ></ script > <!-- exposes a contacts object -->
< script src = "compose-mail.js" ></ script > <!-- exposes a composer object -->
< script >
var channel = new MessageChannel();
composer. addContactsProvider( channel. port1);
contacts. registerConsumer( channel. port2);
</ script >
Here's what the "addContactsProvider()" function's implementation could look like:
function addContactsProvider( port) {
port. onmessage = function ( event) {
switch ( event. data. messageType) {
case 'search-result' : handleSearchResult( event. data. results); break ;
case 'search-done' : handleSearchDone(); break ;
case 'search-error' : handleSearchError( event. data. message); break ;
// ...
}
};
};
Alternatively, it could be implemented as follows:
function addContactsProvider( port) {
port. addEventListener( 'message' , function ( event) {
if ( event. data. messageType == 'search-result' )
handleSearchResult( event. data. results);
});
port. addEventListener( 'message' , function ( event) {
if ( event. data. messageType == 'search-done' )
handleSearchDone();
});
port. addEventListener( 'message' , function ( event) {
if ( event. data. messageType == 'search-error' )
handleSearchError( event. data. message);
});
// ...
port. start();
};
The key difference is that when using addEventListener()
, the start()
method must also be invoked. When using onmessage
, the call to start()
is implied.
The start()
method, whether called explicitly or
implicitly (by setting onmessage
), starts the
flow of messages: messages posted on message ports are initially paused, so that they don't get
dropped on the floor before the script has had a chance to set up its handlers.
Ports can be viewed as a way to expose limited capabilities (in the object-capability model sense) to other actors in the system. This can either be a weak capability system, where the ports are merely used as a convenient model within a particular origin, or as a strong capability model, where they are provided by one origin provider as the only mechanism by which another origin consumer can effect change in or obtain information from provider.
For example, consider a situation in which a social web site embeds in one iframe
the user's email contacts provider (an address book site, from a second origin), and in a second
iframe
a game (from a third origin). The outer social site and the game in the second
iframe
cannot access anything inside the first iframe
; together they can
only:
iframe
to a new URL, such as the same
URL but with a different fragment,
causing the Window
in the iframe
to receive a hashchange
event.iframe
, causing the Window
in the iframe
to
receive a resize
event.message
event to the Window
in the
iframe
using the window.postMessage()
API.The contacts provider can use these methods, most particularly the third one, to provide an API
that can be accessed by other origins to manipulate the user's address book. For example, it could
respond to a message "add-contact Guillaume Tell
<tell@pomme.example.net>
" by adding the given person and email address to the user's
address book.
To avoid any site on the web being able to manipulate the user's contacts, the contacts provider might only allow certain trusted sites, such as the social site, to do this.
Now suppose the game wanted to add a contact to the user's address book, and that the social site was willing to allow it to do so on its behalf, essentially "sharing" the trust that the contacts provider had with the social site. There are several ways it could do this; most simply, it could just proxy messages between the game site and the contacts site. However, this solution has a number of difficulties: it requires the social site to either completely trust the game site not to abuse the privilege, or it requires that the social site verify each request to make sure it's not a request that it doesn't want to allow (such as adding multiple contacts, reading the contacts, or deleting them); it also requires some additional complexity if there's ever the possibility of multiple games simultaneously trying to interact with the contacts provider.
Using message channels and MessagePort
objects, however, all of these problems can
go away. When the game tells the social site that it wants to add a contact, the social site can
ask the contacts provider not for it to add a contact, but for the capability to add a
single contact. The contacts provider then creates a pair of MessagePort
objects, and
sends one of them back to the social site, who forwards it on to the game. The game and the
contacts provider then have a direct connection, and the contacts provider knows to only honor a
single "add contact" request, nothing else. In other words, the game has been granted the
capability to add a single contact.
Continuing the example from the previous section, consider the contacts provider in particular.
While an initial implementation might have simply used XMLHttpRequest
objects in the
service's iframe
, an evolution of the service might instead want to use a shared worker with a single WebSocket
connection.
If the initial design used MessagePort
objects to grant capabilities, or even just
to allow multiple simultaneous independent sessions, the service implementation can switch from
the XMLHttpRequest
s-in-each-iframe
model to the
shared-WebSocket
model without changing the API at all: the ports on the service
provider side can all be forwarded to the shared worker without it affecting the users of the API
in the slightest.
Support in all current engines.
channel = new MessageChannel()
Returns a new MessageChannel
object with two new MessagePort
objects.
channel.port1
Returns the first MessagePort
object.
channel.port2
Returns the second MessagePort
object.
Support in all current engines.
Each channel has two message ports. Data sent through one port is received by the other port, and vice versa.
port.postMessage(message [, transfer])
port.postMessage(message [, { transfer }])
Posts a message through the channel. Objects listed in transfer are transferred, not just cloned, meaning that they are no longer usable on the sending side.
Throws a "DataCloneError
" DOMException
if
transfer contains duplicate objects or port, or if message
could not be cloned.
port.start()
Begins dispatching messages received on the port.
port.close()
Disconnects the port, so that it is no longer active.
Broadcasting to many ports is in principle relatively simple: keep an array of
MessagePort
objects to send messages to, and iterate through the array to send a
message. However, this has one rather unfortunate effect: it prevents the ports from being garbage
collected, even if the other side has gone away. To avoid this problem, implement a simple
protocol whereby the other side acknowledges it still exists. If it doesn't do so after a certain
amount of time, assume it's gone, close the MessagePort
object, and let it be garbage
collected.
Authors are strongly encouraged to explicitly close MessagePort
objects to disentangle them, so that their resources can be recollected. Creating many
MessagePort
objects and discarding them without closing them can lead to high
transient memory usage since garbage collection is not necessarily performed promptly, especially
for MessagePort
s where garbage collection can involve cross-process coordination.
Support in all current engines.
Support in all current engines.
Pages on a single origin opened by the same user in the same user agent but in different unrelated browsing contexts sometimes need to send notifications to each other, for example "hey, the user logged in over here, check your credentials again".
For elaborate cases, e.g. to manage locking of shared state, to manage synchronization of
resources between a server and multiple local clients, to share a WebSocket
connection with a remote host, and so forth, shared workers are
the most appropriate solution.
For simple cases, though, where a shared worker would be an unreasonable overhead, authors can use the simple channel-based broadcast mechanism described in this section.
broadcastChannel = new BroadcastChannel(name)
Returns a new BroadcastChannel
object via which messages for the given channel
name can be sent and received.
broadcastChannel.name
Returns the channel name (as passed to the constructor).
broadcastChannel.postMessage(message)
Sends the given message to other BroadcastChannel
objects set up for this
channel. Messages can be structured objects, e.g. nested objects and arrays.
broadcastChannel.close()
Closes the BroadcastChannel
object, opening it up to garbage
collection.
Authors are strongly encouraged to explicitly close BroadcastChannel
objects when they are no longer needed, so that they can be garbage collected. Creating many
BroadcastChannel
objects and discarding them while leaving them with an event
listener and without closing them can lead to an apparent memory leak, since the objects will
continue to live for as long as they have an event listener (or until their page or worker is
closed).
Suppose a page wants to know when the user logs out, even when the user does so from another tab at the same site:
var authChannel = new BroadcastChannel( 'auth' );
authChannel. onmessage = function ( event) {
if ( event. data == 'logout' )
showLogout();
}
function logoutRequested() {
// called when the user asks us to log them out
doLogout();
showLogout();
authChannel. postMessage( 'logout' );
}
function doLogout() {
// actually log the user out (e.g. clearing cookies)
// ...
}
function showLogout() {
// update the UI to indicate we're logged out
// ...
}