Home page logo
/

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: shell:windows command question
From: Darren Reed <avalon () cairo anu edu au>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 01:38:02 +1000 (Australia/NSW)

In some mail from Barry Fitzgerald, sie said:
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?

I'm not suggesting anything other than what I said.

Darren

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


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]