Hi Kent Ya i had a look in the forums over there and they are aware of the issue
Darren On Oct 15, 5:25 am, Cometcom1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oliver, > > Thanks for clearing that one up. I think there's a little extra work > cut out for Google with this added security though. With these added > function of Chrome, and possibly the expansion of the Chrome cummunity > we will likely see more of this kind of references in the future. This > would essentially mean that the Diagnostics pages would not be exactly > acurate with the level of detection added in Chrome. Maybe there is > something that can be done from the Chrome browsers point which can > help the cause further. > > Denis and Darren, > > Great that you two figured out the full extend of the problem. I had > no doubt once I realized Denis had it nailed too. Did any of you give > the Joomla coomunity a hint about a possible problem with this one, at > least so that it can be investigated? > > Denis, > > By the next best thing, I had the protocol analysis in mind. It's a > quick and dirty method of watching for data being send around. It's a > little messy, I admit, and I completely missed the indicator - hence > it's the next best thing as it requires quite some work to decode. > > Kent --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message through the Google Groups "stopbadware" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stopbadware?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
