On Saturday 16 October 2010 11:30:59 David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
> On Saturday 16 October 2010 10:58:30 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > Oh, right, it is also very insecure. I'm not sure what "incognito mode"
> > is, and believe it or not, not everyone uses Firefox or Chrome, but
> > won't JavaScript still leak information like a drunk widow? (Ie. your
> > browser, display resolution, and other potentially de-anonymizing
> > stuff?) Sure, FProxy will try to filter scripts, but having (ugly)
> > gaping holes lying around doesn't comfort me. (Although, even if
> > (the various?) JavaScript implementations were made more
> > anonymous-friendly, and even if they were made to work with less than
> > 100% cpu, it's still just plain ugly / script-unfriendly / etc.)
> You obviously have not understood what we are actually talking about. We are 
> NOT planning to allow freesites to execute arbitrary JavaScript. (And I had 
> thought that would have been clear.)
> We are talking about the Freenet web interface being spiced up with 
> JavaScript 
> to increase usability. Freesites will keep being denied any JavaScript, as 
> usual.

We have to filter out not only javascript but also e.g. inline images already. 
This will not change.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Support mailing list
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to