Full Disclosure: Re: shell:windows command question

[Barry Fitzgerald <bkfsec () sdf lonestar org>]

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