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

From: Darren Reed (avalon_at_cairo.anu.edu.au)
Date: 07/08/04

  • Next message: Skander Ben Mansour: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] How big is the danger of IE?"
    To: bkfsec@sdf.lonestar.org (Barry Fitzgerald)
    Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 00:23:52 +1000 (Australia/NSW)
    
    

    In some mail from Barry Fitzgerald, sie said:
    >
    > Andreas Sandblad wrote:
    >
    > >Did some quick search on Bugzilla and came up with the following:
    > >
    > >Mozilla allows external protocols as discussed in:
    > >http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167475
    > >They seem to blacklist the following external protocol handlers:
    > >(patch http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=102263&action=view)
    > >hcp, vbscript, javascript, ms-help, vnd.ms.radio
    > >
    > >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.

    Darren

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


  • Next message: Skander Ben Mansour: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] How big is the danger of IE?"