Comment #16 on issue 30881 by wrtout: IDNs displayed as punycode in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
Jan, OK with most of what you said there. But when you say I am reasonably
convinced
that we made the best choice, can we know what that choice is? There is
an
Updates:
Status: WontFix
Comment #1 on issue 30881 by tha...@chromium.org: IDNs displayed as
punycode in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
Evan says this is intentional, protecting the english-speaking world from
spoofing is
apparently more important
Comment #2 on issue 30881 by e...@chromium.org: IDNs displayed as punycode
in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
:P
You can ask Brett about it if you want, that was just a guess
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of
Updates:
Status: Unconfirmed
Cc: bre...@chromium.org
Comment #3 on issue 30881 by viettrun...@chromium.org: IDNs displayed as
punycode in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
I think that's a lousy excuse. There are characters that look like each
Comment #4 on issue 30881 by e...@chromium.org: IDNs displayed as punycode
in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
http://www.shmoo.com/idn/ (try it in a non-chrome browser that supports
idn)
I guess firefox does idn expansion as well for this attack tho
--
You
Updates:
Status: Untriaged
Comment #5 on issue 30881 by tha...@chromium.org: IDNs displayed as
punycode in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279099 seems to be the
discussion of
what firefox does. I'm about
Updates:
Status: Unconfirmed
Comment #6 on issue 30881 by tha...@chromium.org: IDNs displayed as
punycode in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or
Comment #7 on issue 30881 by tha...@chromium.org: IDNs displayed as
punycode in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
I think what Firefox ended up doing is to have a per-TLD whitelist since
quite a few
domain registries don't allow registering of spoofable domains
Updates:
Status: WontFix
Cc: i...@chromium.org
Comment #8 on issue 30881 by pkast...@chromium.org: IDNs displayed as
punycode in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
We have a much-thought-through-and-discussed policy on punycode vs. unicode
in
the
Updates:
Cc: miran...@chromium.org
Comment #9 on issue 30881 by tha...@chromium.org: IDNs displayed as
punycode in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense, I guess. Firefox's behavior
seems to be more user-friendly to
Comment #10 on issue 30881 by viettrun...@chromium.org: IDNs displayed as
punycode in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
Should I re-open this as an Mac-only bug?
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or
Comment #11 on issue 30881 by pkast...@chromium.org: IDNs displayed as
punycode in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
It would definitely be good to have a description of what we do somewhere,
even if
only for our own reference. brettw is probably the authority
Comment #12 on issue 30881 by bre...@chromium.org: IDNs displayed as
punycode in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
Jungshik (on the I18N team) came up with most of the current rules. Blindly
displaying IDN in all cases is a really bad idea. We mostly match IE
Comment #13 on issue 30881 by tha...@chromium.org: IDNs displayed as
punycode in omnibox
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=30881
Thanks, Brett. That sounds like we don't have a document describing the
logic. I filed
issue 30906 on me to write one.
--
You received this
14 matches
Mail list logo
