Re: [Full-Disclosure] shell:windows command question

From: Barry Fitzgerald (bkfsec_at_sdf.lonestar.org)
Date: 07/08/04

  • Next message: S G Masood: "Security contact wanted" 
    To: Darren Reed <avalon@cairo.anu.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:28:22 -0400

    Darren Reed wrote:

    >>>A simple solution would be to add the shell protocol to this list.
    >>>Personally I think a secure blacklist is hard to maintain as new
    >>>dangerous external protocols could be invented by third-parties leaving
    >>>Mozilla vulnerable again.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Completely agreed.
    >>
    >>There should be a whitelist, not a blacklist... a safe protocols list.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >And what would happen?
    >
    >Nobody would configure anything but those.
    >
    >And what would happen next?
    >
    >People would find ways to put their "new stuff" inside the "safe ones".
    >
    >Kind of like how "http" is declared safe (but is it really??) and so
    >every man and their dog tunnels their proprietary stuff through that
    >because it'll go through firewalls.
    >
    >
    >

    And you're suggesting that allowing local protocols to run local code
    per the background call of a website is better?

                 -Barry

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  • Next message: S G Masood: "Security contact wanted"

    Relevant Pages
    • Quantcast