On 2/23/10 6:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/23/10 8:14 PM, Natch wrote:
>> I was thinking (in bug 491243) that channels shouldn't inherit chrome
>> privileges ever unless they are data, javascript or chrome channels
>> (or that sort).
>
> That's already the case.
The documents can end up priv
On 2/21/10 10:45 PM, Manuel Reimer wrote:
> my distributor, so far, didn't publish an updated package, so I'll have
> to keep with an old Firefox for some days.
>
> For all of the current holes, disabling Javascript seems to be OK for
> the meantime, according to your advisories, so I did so.
>
>
On 2/23/10 8:14 PM, Natch wrote:
I was thinking (in bug 491243) that channels shouldn't inherit chrome
privileges ever unless they are data, javascript or chrome channels
(or that sort).
That's already the case.
For example, it is possible for any web site to run in an elevated
context(and do
I was thinking (in bug 491243) that channels shouldn't inherit chrome
privileges ever unless they are data, javascript or chrome channels
(or that sort).
For example, it is possible for any web site to run in an elevated
context(and do practically anything to the user's computer) if you
type the f
On 23.02.2010 02:21, Jan Schejbal wrote:
Hi,
Test server at https://ssltls.de
none of the two images is visible with my Fx3.6. I don't give any
guarantees about my prefs and addons, though.
Jan
Firefox 3.6 does not yet have any fixes for this. As of today, only the
experimental nightly b
On 23.02.2010 02:21, Jan Schejbal wrote:
Hi,
Test server at https://ssltls.de
none of the two images is visible with my Fx3.6. I don't give any
guarantees about my prefs and addons, though.
Jan
Firefox 3.6 does not yet have any fixes for this. As of today, only the
experimental nightly b
