With all due respect, a little more courtesy and a little less sniping would be appreciated.
I am in agreement with Anthony - if the first response was a simple "yes" or "no" (from a public list nonetheless), would you have blindly accepted it as the gospel truth? The question that you asked is significantly broader than you seem to appreciate. My trust model works in reverse to yours - personally if I cannot believe believe something to be secure, I default to believing it to be insecure / not trusting it. With that out of the way, consider these and please help narrow down which attack vectors you want more detailed responses to: * Is greasemonkey secure / protected from site owners being aware that a user script is being run On 31 Aug 2011 17:08, "Anna Morimoto" <[email protected]> wrote: On 8/31/2011 9:41 AM, Anthony Lieuallen wrote: > > On Wed Aug 31 07:43:27 2011, Anna Morimoto wrote:... Only if you can't read English. The other add-on developers I've queried have answered this same question with a yes or a no. If you can't answer no, then the answer must be yes. I like greasemonkey, but I like the truth more. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "greasemonkey-users" g... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "greasemonkey-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users?hl=en.
