[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD6s_XtSX+9uQpESMxu2wQ=UcZYMrvPV07VjofgiGyETmxRMmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:41:05 +0100
From: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
To: Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf@...edump.cx>
Cc: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
bugtraq <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Re: silly PoCs continue: X-Frame-Options give you
less than expected
> Because it's bugtraq / full-disclosure, where people generally talk
> about vulnerabilities...
Sure thing. Complaining about patches that don't do
anything<http://lcamtuf.blogspot.com/2011/12/x-frame-options-or-solving-wrong.html>is
a plus to your reputation, I guess, right? Finding tangible solutions
to your problems means that eventually you'll loose the job.
> I'm not sure I follow your drift about Firefox, I don't believe it's
> mentioned anywhere.
Indeed, you didn't mention Firefox. Someone else did.
> Why?
It's harder to predict how much it would take for a page to load,
as well as your caching concept will fail when the target in question
can only be invoked by the user. Also, there's the situation where
a simple click won't get you anywhere, for instance, in cases where
a user has to enter his credentials as well as to confirm the action.
Chris.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists