Wait, why is it useless? At minimum there is the example cited in the article of checking file length without having to download the actual file, but more generally, if headers have any value, and they must since they exist, why can't you imagine situations where you just want to see the headers without downloading a giant body?
For a client side code running on 3rd party page, there is no use case to let it send HEAD to you. Only GET and POST should be allowed by default, other methods only through CORS preflight. That was the premise of CORS. They broke it.
If GET is considered safe, HEAD must be as well. It's complete nonsense to claim HEAD is dangerous while GET is safe. Semantically, HEAD is literally just "do a GET but don't give me the body", so it should have the exact same server-side behavior as GET, except with the available optimization of not generating the response body (since it will be discarded).
The only reason this bug existed is because Rails treated HEAD as GET in some cases but not others. The sensible behavior here would be, in the Router, if the route didn't explicitly specify :head then it should convert the request to GET before handing it to the route. A route that wants to explicitly support HEAD (e.g. by skipping the response body) should explicitly specify :head on the route.
But the existence of this rails bug says nothing at all about the security of HEAD in general.
> The only reason this bug existed is because Rails treated HEAD as GET in some cases but not others
It is the main reason, yes, but not the only reason. If it wasn't possible to craft cross-site HEAD (which devs use in real life like.. never?) the bug would stop right there.
With an extra method if-else logic turned faulty. I would argue 90% web devs don't even remember of HEAD and what it means. Reasonably so, because it's rather never used.
IMO order of blame: 1) rails 2) browsers 3) github code relying on .get?
> If it wasn't possible to craft cross-site HEAD (which devs use in real life like.. never?) the bug would stop right there.
You're still focusing on the wrong thing. HEAD requests are largely obsolete at this point, yes, but that doesn't mean browsers would be right in changing the semantics of a HEAD request. The problem here isn't that browsers use the same security model for HEAD that they do for GET (as that's absolutely correctly) but that Rails decided to only partially support HEAD. Another simple fix for this bug would have been for Rails to simply give no special behavior to HEAD at all, and therefore any route that doesn't explicitly specify :head wouldn't be used for a HEAD request. The fact that Rails decided to deliver HEAD requests to a GET route without changing the request to actually appear as a GET request is a serious design mistake, and not one that browsers are responsible for.
