On 09/03/2013, at 00:54, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > Mark, > that is an exhaustive list of links and talks but how many real use cases > where we let the user inject any sort of script code in the website and we > inject malicious libraries we are not aware, compared with the number of all > website that would never suffer any problem with this ? > > Comparing Java Applets with JavaScript is a no-go, Java had privileged access > to the system, nothing caller could achieve in all it's possible evil forms, > neither eval could do much there. > > I think there are no real use cases where caller is dangerous if not few > academic purpose attempts to make it safer, and you seemed to work in > probably all of them ... ask devs out there how many are using those > libraries. > > As summary, you ask us to bring real cases where caller is needed, I would do > the other way around: bring real cases in the real world where caller could > be such disaster because trusting user inputs and blindly include external > libraries are not, again, real world use cases ... not the majority of them, > am I wrong ? > > I see this like "don't use SQKL ever because there could be SQL injections" > ... sense? None for me :-/
I think the key terms are "cooperation under mutual suspicion", "mashups", and "object capability": the idea is that you'd *want* to be able to run untrusted possibly evil code side by side with your code in your page (e.g. an ad and a payment gateway). Other links: Gears and the Mashup Problem: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfBL2sc2zUU/> Web Forward: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh7TeoEwNyI#t=15m40s> Securing JavaScript: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6TTQoqln7c> We'd much rather play with unloaded guns than in hopes that nobody else pulls the trigger? -- (Jorge)(); _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
