RE: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
From Gianni Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] or maybe something like this since DBR's can have periods shorter than 1 day. /__DATE__MMDDHHMM/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE// It's ugly. Really really ugly. I don't think it's ugly or I wouldn't have suggested it. However if you are willing to implement it, I don't care how you do it as long as you don't change the anonymity filter. You do probably want minute resolution for the DBR time though. --gj Didn't we go over this some months ago? I'm having trouble finding it in the archives (or even reasonably complete archives at all), but I thought there was agreement on something along the lines of freenet:ssk@40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/[MMDD]TFE// I'm not sure about what sort of format we wanted between the brackets, I was in favor of just using a java port of getdate (which I have laying around here somewhere) but I don't know if that went over well or what. -- Benjamin Coates ___ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:28:51PM -0400, Benjamin Coates wrote: From Gianni Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] or maybe something like this since DBR's can have periods shorter than 1 day. /__DATE__MMDDHHMM/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE// It's ugly. Really really ugly. I don't think it's ugly or I wouldn't have suggested it. However if you are willing to implement it, I don't care how you do it as long as you don't change the anonymity filter. You do probably want minute resolution for the DBR time though. --gj Didn't we go over this some months ago? I'm having trouble finding it in the archives (or even reasonably complete archives at all), but I thought there was agreement on something along the lines of freenet:ssk@40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/[MMDD]TFE// I'm not sure about what sort of format we wanted between the brackets, I was in favor of just using a java port of getdate (which I have laying around here somewhere) but I don't know if that went over well or what. We have implemented /SSK@blah/blah?date=MMDD[-HH:MM:SS] ([] meaning optional) - a very rigid format, but not a difficult one to write or to parse. Hopefully we can just unblock ?'s, and this will just work (or we could only allow certain safe parameters to relative links, ?date being the main one). -- Benjamin Coates -- Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet/Coldstore open source hacker. Looking for $coding (I'm cheap) msg03790/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Monday 02 September 2002 05:10, you wrote: On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: So should I fix the filter not to bark on question marks ? I think so. I disagree. Every 1337 d00d will set the htl of the active links to the content they want to propagate to ridiculously high values. This might even be a useful way to probe for who is requesting what content. Content authors shouldn't have unchecked control over fproxy paramaters. It will cause trouble sooner or later. The fact that we can not prevent WWW pages from making requests to fproxy with rude parameter values is no excuse for not fixing the problem for content originating inside freenet. --gj ___ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 10:53:39AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: On Monday 02 September 2002 05:10, you wrote: On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: So should I fix the filter not to bark on question marks ? I think so. I disagree. Every 1337 d00d will set the htl of the active links to the content they want to propagate to ridiculously high values. This might even be a useful way to probe for who is requesting what content. The fact remains that any link from outside freenet can already do this. If it is really a problem then we ought to get rid of the htl argument in the URL altogether, and make it configuration setting. Personally, I don't think it is a problem. People who click on a link to find content should find it if it is out there. Claiming that people would set ridiculously high HTL to propogate data assumes that usually users don't find the data - how crap are we if we operate from that assumption? Getting people to click on the link should be enough to propogate the data, raising the htl should ideally have little effect. And anyways, people CAN'T set ridiculously high HTL values, that is what the node maxHTL is for. Content authors shouldn't have unchecked control over fproxy paramaters. It will cause trouble sooner or later. The fact that we can not prevent WWW pages from making requests to fproxy with rude parameter values is no excuse for not fixing the problem for content originating inside freenet. Either they are a problem, and they should be removed, or they aren't. Saying well, they are a problem but we can filter them sometimes so we'll whistle and pretend like it's ok is stupid. I could be convinced that the HTL should not be provided by the URL and that we need to remove it. But I cannot be convinced of an illogical and unreasonable middle ground. -- Oskar Sandberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:28:32PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: The fact remains that any link from outside freenet can already do this. If it is really a problem then we ought to get rid of the htl argument in the URL altogether, and make it configuration setting. Another solution would be to have fproxy generate a random per-session key which must be specified whenever a protected argument (such as HTL) is used. Ian. -- Ian Clarke[EMAIL PROTECTED] Founder Coordinator, The Freenet Projecthttp://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ msg03756/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Monday 02 September 2002 15:10, you wrote: On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:28:32PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: The fact remains that any link from outside freenet can already do this. If it is really a problem then we ought to get rid of the htl argument in the URL altogether, and make it configuration setting. Another solution would be to have fproxy generate a random per-session key which must be specified whenever a protected argument (such as HTL) is used. Sounds fine to me. I can't think of any arguments that wouldn't fall into the class of protected though. --gj ___ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:00:59PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: On Monday 02 September 2002 15:10, you wrote: On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:28:32PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: The fact remains that any link from outside freenet can already do this. If it is really a problem then we ought to get rid of the htl argument in the URL altogether, and make it configuration setting. Another solution would be to have fproxy generate a random per-session key which must be specified whenever a protected argument (such as HTL) is used. Sounds fine to me. I can't think of any arguments that wouldn't fall into the class of protected though. You mean apart from ?date, ?mime, ?key ? --gj ___ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl msg03766/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:54:02AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 09:02:36PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: On Saturday 31 August 2002 20:07, you wrote: It's ugly. Really really ugly. I don't think it's ugly or I wouldn't have suggested it. However if you are willing to implement it, I don't care how you do it as long as you don't change the anonymity filter. I don't understand what the argument is for filtering out the URL arguments in the first place. If they can be harmful, then they shouldn't be URL arguments - after all, a user can just as well be clicking on a link from a page somewhere else on the web as from a page in freenet. You do probably want minute resolution for the DBR time though. It's already there, Mat just didn't notice. The full form is MMDD-HH:MM:SS. So should I fix the filter not to bark on question marks ? -- Oskar Sandberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl msg03747/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Saturday 31 August 2002 12:46, Matthew wrote: On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: On Friday 30 August 2002 08:57, Matthew wrote: On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: Hi. Newly implemented fproxy functionality allows you to fetch an old edition of a DBR site, like this: http://127.0.0.1:/SSK@rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE//?date= 2002 0817 You don't need to change the anonymity filter. Just add support for a date specifier in fproxy that doesn't use any illegal characters, similar to to the external checked jump stuff. e.g. http://127.0.0.1:/__USE_DATE_20020817__SSK@rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAG cPAgM/TFE// Ugh. The anonymity filter blocks all links, both outlinks and links within freenet, which have ? in them... this is a problem for several sites Why? Are there cases besides the one I outlined below? If we allowed escaped ?, : and in checked jumps would that make content authors happy or are there other issues? As far as internal content goes, I don't think that allowing content authors to pass arbitrary arguments to fproxy is a good idea, at least not without warning first. For example, I don't think that content authors should be able to override the htl I set without fproxy asking me. Another issue would be preventing the case of a freesite making a link that causes local files to be inserted into freenet without warning you... Can it indicate javascript, or is this just to stop links within freenet from messing with the fproxy parameters? Can we safely allow ?'s in external links then? I think there was some issue with escape sequences that would allow you to generate dangerous html but I can't remember. The debate on the filter went on for months and months. I would be really careful about changing it unless you are sure you know what you are doing. [ Aside: Could someone (Ian? agl?) get the old mailing list archives back on line so newer developpers have access to ancient freenet dev chronicles. ] The only place I have seen ? (and also : ) cause problems is in legal checked jumps. e.g. /__CHECKED_HTTP__hawk.freenetproject.org:8890/ Trips the anonyimity filter even though it's safe. The easy conservative thing to do is to create legal escapes. So the above example would become: /__CHECKED_HTTP__hawk.freenetproject.org__COLON__8890/ the filter wouldn't trip when the page was loaded. When the user clicks on the link, they would get the usual warning message, with the escapes still in the url (that way fproxy is *never* rendering html that might have dangerous characters). If they clicked through then fproxy would generate a redirect to the external page with the escapes unescaped. -- gj ___ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:47:45PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: On Saturday 31 August 2002 12:46, Matthew wrote: On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: On Friday 30 August 2002 08:57, Matthew wrote: On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: Hi. Newly implemented fproxy functionality allows you to fetch an old edition of a DBR site, like this: http://127.0.0.1:/SSK@rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE//?date= 2002 0817 You don't need to change the anonymity filter. Just add support for a date specifier in fproxy that doesn't use any illegal characters, similar to to the external checked jump stuff. e.g. http://127.0.0.1:/__USE_DATE_20020817__SSK@rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAG cPAgM/TFE// Ugh. The anonymity filter blocks all links, both outlinks and links within freenet, which have ? in them... this is a problem for several sites Why? Are there cases besides the one I outlined below? If we allowed escaped ?, : and in checked jumps would that make content authors happy or are there other issues? Yes, there are a number of sites which have tried to link to external links with ?'s in them (eg news stories). As far as internal content goes, I don't think that allowing content authors to pass arbitrary arguments to fproxy is a good idea, at least not without warning first. Hmmm. Perhaps. We have ?htl (hmmm) ?force (useless, as mallory doesn't know the random number) ?date (useless to mallory) ?mime (useless, as fproxy will reconfirm or filter if the mime type is risky) ?key (useless to mallory) As far as I can see, the ONLY thing we need to block is ?htl=anything. And that's unclear. However, we do need to block this on any server, as well as on relative links, because we do not know where the node is being run. But current behaviour is to block ? everywhere. Unless by using ? (and not colon, and not any forbidden tags), you can induce javascript? For example, I don't think that content authors should be able to override the htl I set without fproxy asking me. Another issue would be preventing the case of a freesite making a link that causes local files to be inserted into freenet without warning you... This can happen through a get request? Really? How? Can it indicate javascript, or is this just to stop links within freenet from messing with the fproxy parameters? Can we safely allow ?'s in external links then? I think there was some issue with escape sequences that would allow you to generate dangerous html but I can't remember. The debate on the filter went on for months and months. I would be really careful about changing it unless you are sure you know what you are doing. [ Aside: Could someone (Ian? agl?) get the old mailing list archives back on line so newer developpers have access to ancient freenet dev chronicles. ] The only place I have seen ? (and also : ) cause problems is in legal checked jumps. e.g. /__CHECKED_HTTP__hawk.freenetproject.org:8890/ Trips the anonyimity filter even though it's safe. Yes, and similar problems with ?'s. javascript: can cause evil code... but probably not when prefaced with http://... The easy conservative thing to do is to create legal escapes. So the above example would become: /__CHECKED_HTTP__hawk.freenetproject.org__COLON__8890/ the filter wouldn't trip when the page was loaded. When the user clicks on the link, they would get the usual warning message, with the escapes still in the url (that way fproxy is *never* rendering html that might have dangerous characters). If they clicked through then fproxy would generate a redirect to the external page with the escapes unescaped. So an extra level of indirection? Hmmm. -- gj So an alternate date format may make sense... how about /DATE@MMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@MMDD ? is reserved in keys, isn't it? I want old-edition links to work without invoking click-through security, because they represent no conceivable security risk above regular links. The other possibility is to special case ?date=MMDDend of URL in the parser. Any suggestions? msg03715/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
Looking at Parser.flex...
/* Non whitespace and not close of tag (right angle bracket). I.e.
* chars that
* would not cause an unquoted attribute to end */
NONSEP=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:?]
NONSEP_NOQUOTE=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:?]
This I don't understand... ? or : do not terminate the attribute
(meaning the URL in an a href=unquoted URL. Presumably it is to reduce
backtracking? Anyway, the proposed modifications are:
NONSEP=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:]
NONSEP_NOQUOTE=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:]
..
/* Catch any colon or ?htl= within the URL */
LINK_PATTERNS1={LINK_ATTRS}{WS}={WS}[][^:]*[:][^]*
LINK_PATTERNS2={LINK_ATTRS}{WS}={WS}({NONSEP_NOQUOTE}{NONSEP}*)?[:]{NONSEP}*
LINK_PATTERNS3={LINK_ATTRS}{WS}={WS}[][^?]*?htl=
LINK_PATTERNS4={LINK_ATTRS}{WS}={WS}({NONSEP_NOQUOTE}{NONSEP}*)?htl=
LINK_PATTERNS={LINK_PATTERNS1}|{LINK_PATTERNS2}|{LINK_PATTERNS3}|{LINK_PATTERNS4}
This should achieve the functionality we want: block all colons (if we
want to change the port, we should encode it as
__CHECKED_HTTP_hostname_port__ or something), allow ? unless it's part
of a ?htl=... However, I could be grossly mistaken. Comments?
msg03717/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:20:33PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Looking at Parser.flex...
/* Non whitespace and not close of tag (right angle bracket). I.e.
* chars that
* would not cause an unquoted attribute to end */
NONSEP=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:?]
NONSEP_NOQUOTE=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:?]
This I don't understand... ? or : do not terminate the attribute
(meaning the URL in an a href=unquoted URL. Presumably it is to reduce
backtracking? Anyway, the proposed modifications are:
NONSEP=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:]
NONSEP_NOQUOTE=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:]
..
/* Catch any colon or ?htl= within the URL */
LINK_PATTERNS1={LINK_ATTRS}{WS}={WS}[][^:]*[:][^]*
LINK_PATTERNS2={LINK_ATTRS}{WS}={WS}({NONSEP_NOQUOTE}{NONSEP}*)?[:]{NONSEP}*
LINK_PATTERNS3={LINK_ATTRS}{WS}={WS}[][^?]*?htl=
LINK_PATTERNS4={LINK_ATTRS}{WS}={WS}({NONSEP_NOQUOTE}{NONSEP}*)?htl=
LINK_PATTERNS={LINK_PATTERNS1}|{LINK_PATTERNS2}|{LINK_PATTERNS3}|{LINK_PATTERNS4}
JFlex's handling of 's has changed... so the above is wrong. I have a
fixed version, with all the 's escaped, even inside []'s, which is
apparently what jflex 1.5.3 wants.
This should achieve the functionality we want: block all colons (if we
want to change the port, we should encode it as
__CHECKED_HTTP_hostname_port__ or something), allow ? unless it's part
of a ?htl=... However, I could be grossly mistaken. Comments?
msg03718/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
At 07:41 PM 08/31/2002 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: big snippage So an alternate date format may make sense... how about /DATE@MMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@MMDD ? @ is reserved in keys, isn't it? I want old-edition links to work without invoking click-through security, because they represent no conceivable security risk above regular links. The other possibility is to special case ?date=MMDDend of URL in the parser. Any suggestions? I started looking into a similar idea and I stumbled on this so-called metainfo field of a FreenetURI string. It apparently isn't used anywhere yet, since I couldn't find a call to FreenetURI.getMetaInfo(). This metainfo apparently can be optionally included after the crypto key in a FreenetURI string as a series of name=value pairs. I don't know if it can be included when there is no crypto key specified in the FreenetURI string (like in typical SSK strings). Would we better off handling this date-specification stuff in FreenetURI and then when the corresponding request object is created, construct the MetadataSettings from the metaInfo that was contained in the original FreenetURI string? This would enable this feature to work everywhere instead of just in Fproxy. Maybe this doesn't make total sense, but I thought I'd throw it out there and see what people think, especially Matthew Toseland (and others?) who is actually working on code to get this feature finished. Thanks! Ed ___ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:24:07PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, Matthew wrote: On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:47:45PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: On Saturday 31 August 2002 12:46, Matthew wrote: On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: On Friday 30 August 2002 08:57, Matthew wrote: On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: Hi. Newly implemented fproxy functionality allows you to fetch an old edition of a DBR site, like this: http://127.0.0.1:/SSK@rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE//?d ate= 2002 0817 You don't need to change the anonymity filter. Just add support for a date specifier in fproxy that doesn't use any illegal characters, similar to to the external checked jump stuff. e.g. http://127.0.0.1:/__USE_DATE_20020817__SSK@rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8 IzAG cPAgM/TFE// Ugh. The anonymity filter blocks all links, both outlinks and links within freenet, which have ? in them... this is a problem for several sites Why? Are there cases besides the one I outlined below? If we allowed escaped ?, : and in checked jumps would that make content authors happy or are there other issues? Yes, ??? If we implement the following escapes: __USE_DATE___ -- dates Eww. I suppose we could use SSK@blah/blah@MMDD (if is reserved), SSK@blahMMDD/blah ( in the pubkey is definitely reserved), or DBR@MMDD-SSKblah/blah, or something. Date has nothing to do with an outlink anyway, it would be used with in-freenet relative links. __COLON__ - : __QMARK__ - ? __AMP__ - Ampersand is not restricted. I think you can express any of the external jump URLs that people are complaining about. Please give counter examples if you can think of one. I would not change the anonymity filter at all unless you can state a compelling reason for doing so. As I mentioned before, the debate and tweaking went on for *months*. I do not at all consider myself an expert in this area but a lot of people spent a long time getting it right. As far as internal content goes, I don't think that allowing content authors to pass arbitrary arguments to fproxy is a good idea, at least not without warning first. Hmmm. Perhaps. We have ?htl (hmmm) ?force (useless, as mallory doesn't know the random number) ?date (useless to mallory) ?mime (useless, as fproxy will reconfirm or filter if the mime type is risky) ?key (useless to mallory) The worry is not so much what is there now, it is that as people continue to maintain fproxy and error in handling any new argument becomes a potential anonyimity risk if arbitrary arguments are allowed. Hmmm. Perhaps. If ? remains blocked the risk goes away. Another issue would be preventing the case of a freesite making a link that causes local files to be inserted into freenet without warning you... This can happen through a get request? Really? How? Maybe you are right. I haven't thought it through. Can it indicate javascript, or is this just to stop links within freenet from messing with the fproxy parameters? Can we safely allow ?'s in external links then? I think there was some issue with escape sequences that would allow you to generate dangerous html but I can't remember. The debate on the filter went on for months and months. I would be really careful about changing it unless you are sure you know what you are doing. [ Aside: Could someone (Ian? agl?) get the old mailing list archives back on line so newer developpers have access to ancient freenet dev chronicles. ] The only place I have seen ? (and also : ) cause problems is in legal checked jumps. e.g. /__CHECKED_HTTP__hawk.freenetproject.org:8890/ Trips the anonyimity filter even though it's safe. Yes, and similar problems with ?'s. javascript: can cause evil code... but probably not when prefaced with http://... The easy conservative thing to do is to create legal escapes. So the above example would become: /__CHECKED_HTTP__hawk.freenetproject.org__COLON__8890/ the filter wouldn't trip when the page was loaded. When the user clicks on the link, they would get the usual warning message, with the escapes still in the url (that way fproxy is *never* rendering html that might have dangerous characters). I can imagine the posts to support asking what's this __QMARK__ thingy? :). The alternative, anyway, is to translate them into the corresponding HTML escape codes, which should mean they don't get parsed into tags by the browser and are displayed as text. If they clicked through then fproxy would generate a redirect to the external page with the escapes unescaped. So an extra level of indirection? Hmmm. I haven't worked on
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:39:42PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, you wrote: So an alternate date format may make sense... how about /DATE@MMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@MMDD ? is reserved in keys, isn't it? This looks confusing to me. I wouldn't use the symbol. That already has a meaning. Whats wrong with: /__DATE__MMDD/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE// or maybe something like this since DBR's can have periods shorter than 1 day. /__DATE__MMDDHHMM/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE// It's ugly. Really really ugly. It's just a matter of taste I guess. As long as you are not using ? I don't really care how you do it. Ok. I want old-edition links to work without invoking click-through security, because they represent no conceivable security risk above regular links. We definitely agree here. The other possibility is to special case ?date=MMDDend of URL in the parser. Special casing safe arguments is, well, safe... but it doesn't deal with outlinks with ?'s in them. I don't like this idea for the reasons I outlined in my previous message. You don't like the other idea - special casing evil arguments - for the reasons you outlined in your previous message :). It's a slippery slope -- gj msg03724/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Saturday 31 August 2002 20:07, you wrote: On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:39:42PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, you wrote: So an alternate date format may make sense... how about /DATE@MMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@MMDD ? @ is reserved in keys, isn't it? This looks confusing to me. I wouldn't use the @ symbol. That already has a meaning. Whats wrong with: /__DATE__MMDD/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE// or maybe something like this since DBR's can have periods shorter than 1 day. /__DATE__MMDDHHMM/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE// It's ugly. Really really ugly. I don't think it's ugly or I wouldn't have suggested it. However if you are willing to implement it, I don't care how you do it as long as you don't change the anonymity filter. You do probably want minute resolution for the DBR time though. --gj ___ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Fixing spurious filter warnings
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:39:42PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, you wrote: So an alternate date format may make sense... how about /DATE@MMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@MMDD ? is reserved in keys, isn't it? This looks confusing to me. I wouldn't use the symbol. That already has a meaning. Whats wrong with: /__DATE__MMDD/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE// or maybe something like this since DBR's can have periods shorter than 1 day. /__DATE__MMDDHHMM/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE// It's just a matter of taste I guess. As long as you are not using ? I don't really care how you do it. Any web page on the public internet can inline, even invisibly, a link to a page on fproxy, with whatever arguments he wants to use. So we can't allow any really unsafe ? arguments in fproxy, and we certainly can't allow posting from a get form (thanks oskar). I want old-edition links to work without invoking click-through security, because they represent no conceivable security risk above regular links. We definitely agree here. The other possibility is to special case ?date=MMDDend of URL in the parser. I don't like this idea for the reasons I outlined in my previous message. It's a slippery slope -- gj msg03726/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
