* Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't see any new
>privacy-leak vectors here. Without Shared Workers, 3rdparty.com can
>just hold open a communication channel to its server and shuttle
>information between the iframes on A.com and B.com that way.
That do
b Atkins Jr.; Travis Leithead; Arthur Barstow;
public-webapps-requ...@w3.org; Adrian Bateman; public-webapps
Subject: Re: Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline
April 21
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jonas Sick
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Travis Leithead wrote:
>
> We are concerned about the privacy implications we discovered when
> reviewing the current web workers editor's draft in its treatment of
> shared workers [1]. Specifically, the spec as currently written allows
> for 3rd party content to use share
On 4/20/11 6:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
True, you need some side-channel to link the two iframes for a
particular client. You can use something simple like one of the
*other* within-domain communication mediums (cookies, localStorage,
etc.)
Which is why there are options to restrict third-pa
On 4/20/11 3:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't see any new
privacy-leak vectors here. Without Shared Workers, 3rdparty.com can
just hold open a communication channel to its server
Unless you have a firewall or proxy that prevents that particul
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> That's why we're working on trying to fix fingerprinting.
>>
>> The point is that privacy is something that we're all working on
>> trying to improve (right?), and the WebWorkers spec
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>
> That's why we're working on trying to fix fingerprinting.
>
> The point is that privacy is something that we're all working on
> trying to improve (right?), and the WebWorkers spec needs to be
> changed to aid with that. As far as I can s
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
>>> wrote:
Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't s
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
>> wrote:
>>> Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't see any new
>>> privacy-leak vectors here. Without Shared Wor
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't see any new
>> privacy-leak vectors here. Without Shared Workers, 3rdparty.com can
>> just hold open a communication channel
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Travis Leithead
> wrote:
>> (This time before the deadline :)
>>
>> Microsoft has the following additional feedback for this Last Call of Web
>> Workers.
>>
>> We are concerned about the privacy implicati
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
> Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't see any new
> privacy-leak vectors here. Without Shared Workers, 3rdparty.com can
> just hold open a communication channel to its server and shuttle
> information between the iframe
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Travis Leithead
wrote:
> (This time before the deadline :)
>
> Microsoft has the following additional feedback for this Last Call of Web
> Workers.
>
> We are concerned about the privacy implications we discovered when reviewing
> the current web workers editor'
/track-privacy/papers/microsoft-bateman.pdf
-Travis
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 5:42 PM
To: ext Jonas Sicking
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: Re: Reminder: RfC: Last C
On Apr/14/2011 6:39 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft of
Web Workers:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/
If you have any comments, please send them to the foll
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft of
> Web Workers:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/
>
> If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 21 April
> 2011 at the lates
Original Message
Subject:RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline April 21
Resent-Date:Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:37:17 +
Resent-From:
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:34:33 -0500
From: ext Arthur Barstow
To: public-webapps
This is a Request for Co
18 matches
Mail list logo
