I don't care if it's relevant; it should still be clarified. "Did nobody think?" Of course not, nobody knew he would actually go through with something like that.
Discrete On Aug 21, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Katharine Berry <kathar...@katharineberry.co.uk> wrote: >> 2) The active developer of a malicious viewer under the lolguise of >> promoting exploit/bugfixing. > > As I have pointed out elsewhere – I don't think that anyone was actually > considering the target to be terribly virtuous. I also don't think this is > terribly relevant. > > But given you repeatedly emphasise that he is malicious, did nobody think > that it might be unwise to secretly load a website owned by a malicious party > on login? Aside from WebKit/Qt exploits and the like, the SL client also > considers the login frame to be "trusted" (admittedly, there's not much you > can do with this before logging in besides changing the login location, off > the top of my head). _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
