With "no XSS" I meant a XSS exploit doesn't allow access to the data stored in the cookie. I didn't mean it would protect against XSS. Poor/lazy wording on my part, sorry.
It's true that a attacker simply can generate requests from the XSS'ed browser, my understanding was that the session/token is more valuable to an attacker then only an XSS exploit.
However it seems that someone in the past had the same understanding as me and tptacek disagreed [0]. Oh well. Also reading the linked article [1] (are you the author since you use the same wording?) and it's linked articles it seems both cookies and webstorage are not ideal solutions, but local storage might be preferable since CSRF is not a problem, so one thing less to worry about.
It's true that a attacker simply can generate requests from the XSS'ed browser, my understanding was that the session/token is more valuable to an attacker then only an XSS exploit.
However it seems that someone in the past had the same understanding as me and tptacek disagreed [0]. Oh well. Also reading the linked article [1] (are you the author since you use the same wording?) and it's linked articles it seems both cookies and webstorage are not ideal solutions, but local storage might be preferable since CSRF is not a problem, so one thing less to worry about.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11898525
[1] https://portswigger.net/blog/web-storage-the-lesser-evil-for...