Problem
In the current implementation of JavaScriptObjectRepository in CefSharp, there is no built-in mechanism to restrict access to registered C# objects based on the domain or URL of the calling JavaScript. This creates a security concern, as any domain loaded in the browser can potentially access these objects and invoke methods, regardless of their origin.

Goal
Our primary goal is to restrict access to registered objects and their methods, ensuring that only specific allowed domains or URLs can interact with them. This is critical for maintaining the security of applications relying on CefSharp for embedding web content.

We have explored all possible solutions using the existing implementation of JavaScriptObjectRepository and related APIs, but none provide a direct or reliable way to enforce domain-based restrictions.

Proposed Solutions
To address this issue, we propose three potential enhancements:

1. Add URL of the Caller in JavaScriptObjectRepository.ResolveObject - Extend the ResolveObject method to include the URL or domain of the JavaScript caller as a parameter. This would allow developers to decide dynamically whether to allow or cancel the registration of objects based on the origin of the request.
2. Add URL of the Caller in MethodInterceptor - Alternatively, enhance the MethodInterceptor mechanism to include the URL or domain of the caller in its context. This would enable developers to throw exceptions or deny method execution for unauthorized domains.
3. Introduce Allowed Domains in JavaScriptObjectRepository Settings - A more sophisticated and developer-friendly approach would be to introduce a Settings property in JavaScriptObjectRepository, where allowed domains can be configured. CefSharp itself would handle the validation, automatically restricting access to registered objects based on the caller's URL or domain.

I would be glad if we will discuss any other solutions.

Expected Benefits

• Improved Security: Developers can enforce domain-based restrictions on registered objects and their methods.
• Flexibility: Allows for granular control over access policies, whether at the registration or invocation stage,
• Backward Compatibility: These changes can be designed to be non-breaking for existing applications.