If you want to drop a Deezer player into a page without punching unnecessary holes in your Content Security Policy, you’ve got a couple of decent options and one bad habit to avoid. The bad habit is the usual one: something breaks, you sprinkle domains across default-src, maybe throw in https: for good measure, and call it done. That works right up until your CSP stops being a security control and becomes decorative wallpaper. ...
I’ve seen this exact problem show up on developer docs sites more than once: syntax highlighting works great in local dev, then you tighten CSP in production and Prism.js suddenly becomes the thing breaking your code examples. That’s annoying on any site. On a developer-facing site, it’s worse. Broken code blocks make the whole site feel untrustworthy. Here’s a real-world case study for csp-examples, based on a common setup: a docs or blog site using Prism.js for syntax highlighting, plus analytics and consent tooling, with a production CSP that already looks pretty serious. ...
shadcn/ui gives you a weird CSP problem compared to most component libraries: it is not really a library in the classic sense. You copy components into your app, own the code, and then your CSP story becomes your problem. That is good for flexibility, but it also means there is no single “shadcn/ui CSP policy.” The right policy depends on how you render styles, whether you use theme scripts, whether you pull in analytics, and whether your app is static, SSR, or edge-rendered. ...
JSFiddle embeds look harmless until your CSP blocks them or, worse, you punch a giant hole in your policy just to make one iframe work. I’ve seen teams “fix” this by slapping frame-src * or default-src https: into production. That works, but it also guts the point of having CSP in the first place. If you only need to embed JSFiddle, you should allow exactly JSFiddle and nothing else. What a JSFiddle embed actually needs A typical JSFiddle embed is just an iframe: ...
Teams love dropping Loom videos into internal portals, onboarding hubs, help centers, and customer dashboards. Security teams usually hate how fast those embeds spread. I’ve seen this pattern a lot: a portal starts with one harmless embedded video, then picks up analytics, a consent banner, a chat widget, and a couple of “temporary” inline scripts that never go away. The CSP ends up either too loose to matter or so strict that Loom breaks in production. ...
Nivo is usually a pretty easy fit for a strict Content Security Policy. That’s the good news. The catch is that teams often blame the charting library when the real CSP breakage comes from everything around it: analytics, consent banners, custom fonts, exported images, server-side rendering, or a dev setup that quietly relies on unsafe-eval. If you’re adding Nivo charts to a production app and want a sane CSP, here’s how I’d approach it. ...
Teams usually treat icons as harmless. They are tiny, static, and easy to ignore in a CSP rollout. Then the first production deploy lands and half the UI loses its glyphs, the marketing tag manager still works, and somebody “fixes” it by adding img-src * data:. I’ve seen this happen more than once. This case study is about a site I’ll call Bytesize Icons: a developer-facing site with a searchable icon catalog, docs pages, a React app shell, analytics, and consent tooling. The goal was simple: lock down CSP without breaking icon rendering. ...
If you want to embed Eraser in a site with a sane Content Security Policy, you have a few choices. None of them are perfect. The right one depends on whether you care more about tight isolation, easy maintenance, or preserving a very strict policy posture. I’ve had to make this tradeoff on production apps, and the pattern is always the same: the embed itself is easy, the CSP around it is where the mess starts. ...
UnoCSS is great until you turn on a strict Content Security Policy and your styling quietly falls apart. That’s the tradeoff with on-demand atomic CSS. UnoCSS can inject styles at runtime, and CSP tends to hate runtime injection unless you explicitly allow it. If you’ve ever tightened style-src and then watched your app render as unstyled HTML, you’ve already met the problem. The short version: if UnoCSS is generating or injecting <style> tags in the browser, you need to account for that in CSP. If you can shift style generation to build time or server render time, life gets much easier. ...
Adobe Fonts is one of those integrations that looks trivial until your CSP starts blocking it in production. You add the embed code, ship a strict policy, and suddenly your typography falls back to system fonts. Or worse, you loosen style-src too much just to get it working and quietly undo a big chunk of your CSP hardening. I’ve had to clean this up more than once. The good news: Adobe Fonts usually needs only a small set of allowances. The bad news: a lot of examples online are either too broad or copy-pasted from unrelated setups. ...