<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Permissions-Policy on CSP Guide</title>
    <link>https://csp-guide.com/tags/permissions-policy/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Permissions-Policy on CSP Guide</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://csp-guide.com/tags/permissions-policy/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>CSP and Permissions-Policy: Better Together</title>
      <link>https://csp-guide.com/posts/csp-and-the-permissions-policy-header-working-together/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://csp-guide.com/posts/csp-and-the-permissions-policy-header-working-together/</guid>
      
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Content Security Policy and Permissions-Policy solve different problems, and that’s exactly why they work well together.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I’ve seen teams treat security headers like a checklist: add CSP, maybe HSTS, call it done. That misses a lot. CSP controls &lt;strong&gt;what the page can load and execute&lt;/strong&gt;. Permissions-Policy controls &lt;strong&gt;which browser features the page and its iframes can use&lt;/strong&gt;. One limits code and resource behavior. The other limits capability.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If you care about reducing browser-side attack surface, you want both.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
