On Saturday 16 October 2010 11:30:59 David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote: > On Saturday 16 October 2010 10:58:30 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > Oh, right, it is also very insecure. I'm not sure what "incognito mode" > > is, and believe it or not, not everyone uses Firefox or Chrome, but > > won't JavaScript still leak information like a drunk widow? (Ie. your > > browser, display resolution, and other potentially de-anonymizing > > stuff?) Sure, FProxy will try to filter scripts, but having (ugly) > > gaping holes lying around doesn't comfort me. (Although, even if > > (the various?) JavaScript implementations were made more > > anonymous-friendly, and even if they were made to work with less than > > 100% cpu, it's still just plain ugly / script-unfriendly / etc.) > > You obviously have not understood what we are actually talking about. We are > NOT planning to allow freesites to execute arbitrary JavaScript. (And I had > thought that would have been clear.) > > We are talking about the Freenet web interface being spiced up with > JavaScript > to increase usability. Freesites will keep being denied any JavaScript, as > usual.
We have to filter out not only javascript but also e.g. inline images already. This will not change.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
