On 9/4/07, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
What kind of change/revision management would those URLs have? Are copies archived/saved on toolserver for every script that gets uploaded to accessible area? :)
No more or less than the zillions of pre-existing things invoked remotely via <script src= today.
It doesn't help with session hijacking - you can still get cookie values with javascript, and send xmlrequest anywhere you want.
Indeed, you can.
You can also still do this *today* no new functionality is needed to create this problem (audit trailless thingies stealing session cookies).
Yes, it is one of current security problems, probably the global .js rights have to be moved from sysops to stewards :), but at least we can track who and when added what (revision histories!) - there's no such audit trail on toolserver.
Sysops can, have, and are adding script tag calls that call scripts external to the local revision control.
It's also possible to use an invisible iframe as a request proxy off to another domain: http://blog.monstuff.com/archives/000304.html
You won't be able to read contents of that frame, nor get cookies, nor modify anything in frame document's DOM.
Sure you can: You make the code running outside of the iframe eval anything string the iframe passes to it.
In terms of security profile adding a proxy wouldn't change anything..
Now you join the camp of ignorant! :)
Hey ... I'm over here.. you're standing in front of a mirror. :)
but it would allow legitimate tool authors to avoid ugly kludges needed to work around the 'security behavior'.
the security behavior is to protect wikipedians.
Security is good. Failing to understand the current behavior and existing practices is not.