Not until the clickjacking problem is solved by the browser vendors.
End of story.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 14:31, Ryan ryan10...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that twitter recently has inserted a (graceful) iframe
buster which clears out the html. Why is twitter in iframe such a bad
thing when
clickjacking does not really affect pages like http://twitter.com/britneyspears.
whatever... I understand you got to protect yourself from misuse.
On Mar 30, 5:38 pm, Alex Payne a...@twitter.com wrote:
Not until the clickjacking problem is solved by the browser vendors.
End of story.
On
Actually, that 'follow' button it a great clickjacking target, unless
you already follow @britneyspears … which is cool. I'm not here to
judge.
:)
— Matt
On Mar 30, 2009, at 02:52 PM, Ryan wrote:
clickjacking does not really affect pages like http://twitter.com/britneyspears
.
Wow. That would be one evil clickjacking attack concept if it could work.
Are pages on m.twitter.com protected from clickjacking as well?
Zac Bowling
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Matt Sanford m...@twitter.com wrote:
Actually, that 'follow' button it a great clickjacking target, unless
