full-disclosure - Re: JavaScript exploits via source code disclosure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <t2u3af3d47c1005062319x29a0b49ay7b7b93165e6e2630@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 08:19:50 +0200
From: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
To: nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: JavaScript exploits via source code disclosure

OK, scratch "plain text" and instead "human readable code".
Because, let's face it, obfuscators don't do much in the face of
real/determined hackers/attackers.




On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Nick FitzGerald <nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk>wrote:

> Christian Sciberras wrote:
>
> > This is a seriously flawed argument.
>
> Correct...
>
> > JS == plain text. Full Stop.
>
> ...but that has nothing to do with the reasons why.
>
> First, because it is simply wrong (FSVO "plain text").
>
> For just one trivial example, the following Javascript doesn't look
> anything like anything normally considered "plain text":
>
>   http://cecil.auckland.ac.nz/scripts/menu.js
>
> yet it runs as designed (and there's no need for anyone to provide an
> explanation of what it is, what it does, how it works, etc).
>
> In the contexts in which Javascript is typically relevant, and
> specifically in this case, the colloquial "plain text" is generally
> expected to be material that can be safely transferred across the
> internet under text/plain character encoding.  While the above example
> may survive that on a binary-clean transport (like HTTP) it just might
> not on other common internet protocol transports.
>
> And, FWIW, the ECMAScript standard says, in the first sentence of
> Section 6 ("Source Text"):
>
>   ECMAScript source text is represented as a sequence of characters
>   in the Unicode character encoding, version 3.0 or later.
>
> Again, close-minded as it is, Unicode and "plain text" typically do NOT
> mean the same thing on the Internet (an oversight that will probably be
> "fixed" within another generation or so).
>
> I think you confused "plain text" with "necessarily scrutable", or
> similar.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick FitzGerald
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/