BTW By 'I ought to be able to' I mean 'should be able to'
If registered chrome address can point to one or more 'trusted hosts' , this may have the advantage that when a user wishes to have secure access to remote xul, all that is required is to request/download a 'trusted' chrome update from the that host Does this make sense? rvj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message a9go9t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:a9go9t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Thanks - maybe this is where Im missed the plot regarding the importance of > chrome > > Are you implying that I ought to be able to locally register a chrome > location that points to a remote host so I can download remote xul which is > trusted? > > > > Brian King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Assuming a remote xul is opened using something like > http://host/remote.xul > > > why is this more unsecure than chrome:://workstation/local.xul > > > > Only registered chrome can access other chrome via chrome:// URLs. > > Registering means the guarantee of some level of trust. Chrome loaded > > remotely does not have this level of trust as you can not allow arbitray > > access to all of the chrome for various reasons which escape me at the > > moment. > > > > - Brian > > > > > >
