Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Apparently the practice was prevalent


From: Scott Taylor <security () 303underground com>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:20:39 -0700

Wouldn't it make sense to accept user@pass, but NOT DISPLAY IT on the
address bar? so even if someone clicks on a shady link, they don't see
http://www.visa.com () crooks com, they only see http://crooks.com on their
address bar? And with all those miserable encoded characters translated
back to plaintext too. Yeah I know. silly idea. Just too bloody obvious
I guess.

On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 12:36, Luke Norman wrote:
I'm afraid I disagree. Surely its better to disable by default, but 
leave it so that it can be turned on if necessary. People argue that 
windows needs to be shipped with services turned off, but not removed 
completely - a virus could turn these services on, but that isn't 
sufficient cause for removing them. It's a user preference, and if I 
want to be able to enter urls in user:pass@host format, then I should be 
given the option to do so

Luke
--
Scott Taylor - <security () 303underground com> 

BOFH Excuse #429:

Temporal anomaly

    

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


Current thread: