s.grok.org.uk, bugtraq@securityfocus.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Self-contained XSS Attacks (the new generation of XSS)Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:03:11 -0400>>Hello pdp,>> > http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/self-contained-xss-attacks> &g
hi there,
personally I don't care if it is a new or old vector :) to be
completely honest with you but thanks for the clarifications. I will
leave it to you guys to decide.
cheers Tim
On 9/22/06, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello pdp,
>
> > http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/self-contained-xs
Hello pdp,
> http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/self-contained-xss-attacks
>
> XSS attacks can be persistent and non-persistent. Persistent XSS is
> more dangerous since it allow attackers to control exploited clients
> for longer. On the other hand non-persistent XSS is considered less
> dangerous
http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/self-contained-xss-attacks
XSS attacks can be persistent and non-persistent. Persistent XSS is
more dangerous since it allow attackers to control exploited clients
for longer. On the other hand non-persistent XSS is considered less
dangerous although it has been wide
