Matthew Toseland skrev:
>> - not fixing the real problem ( there are other ways to know if you
>> are running freenet.
>> for example, just include a http://127.0.0.1:";
>> onLoad="freenetLoaded();" />
>>
>
> IMHO this qualifies as a cross-site scripting attack. Don't browsers have to
Matthew Toseland schrieb:
> On Saturday 17 January 2009 23:50, svenerichoffmann at gmx.de wrote:
>> I think the only "real" solution to guarantee safety
>> is a dedicated freenet browser.
>
> Isn't that what I just said?
>> Trying to control the behaviour and safety of standard browsers
>> is ser
On Sunday 18 January 2009 10:30, Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
> > * svenerichoffmann at gmx.de [2009-01-18
> > 00:50:17]:
> >
> >> I think the only "real" solution to guarantee safety
> >> is a dedicated freenet browser.
> >>
> >> Trying to co
On Sunday 18 January 2009 17:54, Zero3 wrote:
> Daniel Cheng skrev:
> > Maybe we should try the another way round: detect if the user use the
> > same browser
> > for other web sites and issue a big fat warning for this.
> >
>
> Oh, the sweet irony in us using the same exploit to test if user h
On Saturday 17 January 2009 23:50, svenerichoffmann at gmx.de wrote:
> I think the only "real" solution to guarantee safety
> is a dedicated freenet browser.
Isn't that what I just said?
>
> Trying to control the behaviour and safety of standard browsers
> is serious problematic. As Webmaster i
> There are some user still using frost (it is getting less spam when i
> last checked).
> People copy and parse freenet uri from frost to browser. This hurt
> people copying
> link from IM (skype/icq/msn/jabber) to browser too.
But at least on Frost people have the added protection of not being a
Matthew Toseland skrev:
>> - not fixing the real problem ( there are other ways to know if you
>> are running freenet.
>> for example, just include a http://127.0.0.1:";
>> onLoad="freenetLoaded();" />
>>
>
> IMHO this qualifies as a cross-site scripting attack. Don't browsers have to
Matthew Toseland schrieb:
> On Saturday 17 January 2009 23:50, svenerichoffm...@gmx.de wrote:
>> I think the only "real" solution to guarantee safety
>> is a dedicated freenet browser.
>
> Isn't that what I just said?
>> Trying to control the behaviour and safety of standard browsers
>> is seriou
On Sunday 18 January 2009 10:30, Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Florent Daignière
> wrote:
> > * svenerichoffm...@gmx.de [2009-01-18 00:50:17]:
> >
> >> I think the only "real" solution to guarantee safety
> >> is a dedicated freenet browser.
> >>
> >> Trying to control th
On Sunday 18 January 2009 17:54, Zero3 wrote:
> Daniel Cheng skrev:
> > Maybe we should try the another way round: detect if the user use the
> > same browser
> > for other web sites and issue a big fat warning for this.
> >
>
> Oh, the sweet irony in us using the same exploit to test if user h
On Saturday 17 January 2009 23:50, svenerichoffm...@gmx.de wrote:
> I think the only "real" solution to guarantee safety
> is a dedicated freenet browser.
Isn't that what I just said?
>
> Trying to control the behaviour and safety of standard browsers
> is serious problematic. As Webmaster i kno
> There are some user still using frost (it is getting less spam when i
> last checked).
> People copy and parse freenet uri from frost to browser. This hurt
> people copying
> link from IM (skype/icq/msn/jabber) to browser too.
But at least on Frost people have the added protection of not being a
Daniel Cheng skrev:
> Maybe we should try the another way round: detect if the user use the
> same browser
> for other web sites and issue a big fat warning for this.
>
Oh, the sweet irony in us using the same exploit to test if user has
visited http://www.google.com/, http://www.ebay.com/,
h
>> to start the "freenet" browser would be fine and convinient thing.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Matthew Toseland"
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 12:34 AM
>> Subject: [freenet-dev] History cloaking sucks
>&g
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> We decided to get rid of the firefox profile, because it was becoming the
> default profile on a few users' systems, causing severe problems as the user
> didn't know what a browser profile is let alone how to switch back to the
> default
ient thing.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Toseland"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 12:34 AM
> Subject: [freenet-dev] History cloaking sucks
>
>
> > ___
> > Devl mailing list
> >
Daniel Cheng skrev:
> Maybe we should try the another way round: detect if the user use the
> same browser
> for other web sites and issue a big fat warning for this.
>
Oh, the sweet irony in us using the same exploit to test if user has
visited http://www.google.com/, http://www.ebay.com/,
h
to start the "freenet" browser would be fine and convinient thing.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Matthew Toseland"
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 12:34 AM
>> Subject: [freenet-dev] History cloaking sucks
>>
>&
g.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Toseland"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 12:34 AM
> Subject: [freenet-dev] History cloaking sucks
>
>
> > ___
> > Devl mailing list
> > Dev
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> We decided to get rid of the firefox profile, because it was becoming the
> default profile on a few users' systems, causing severe problems as the user
> didn't know what a browser profile is let alone how to switch back to the
> default
--- Original Message -
From: "Matthew Toseland"
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 12:34 AM
Subject: [freenet-dev] History cloaking sucks
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.
We decided to get rid of the firefox profile, because it was becoming the
default profile on a few users' systems, causing severe problems as the user
didn't know what a browser profile is let alone how to switch back to the
default one.
This meant freenet would typically be browsed by the user
--- Original Message -
From: "Matthew Toseland"
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 12:34 AM
Subject: [freenet-dev] History cloaking sucks
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl@freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-b
We decided to get rid of the firefox profile, because it was becoming the
default profile on a few users' systems, causing severe problems as the user
didn't know what a browser profile is let alone how to switch back to the
default one.
This meant freenet would typically be browsed by the user
24 matches
Mail list logo
