Re: shell:windows command question

[Darren Reed <avalon () cairo anu edu au>]

In some mail from Barry Fitzgerald, sie said:
> Darren Reed wrote:
> > > > A simple solution would be to add the shell protocol to this list.
> > > > Personally I think a secure blacklist is hard to maintain as new
> > > > dangerous external protocols could be invented by third-parties leaving
> > > > Mozilla vulnerable again.
> > > >      
> > > Completely agreed.
> > >
> > > There should be a whitelist, not a blacklist... a safe protocols list.
> >
> > And what would happen?
> >
> > Nobody would configure anything but those.
> >
> > And what would happen next?
> >
> > People would find ways to put their "new stuff" inside the "safe ones".
> >
> > Kind of like how "http" is declared safe (but is it really??) and so
> > every man and their dog tunnels their proprietary stuff through that
> > because it'll go through firewalls.
>
> And you're suggesting that allowing local protocols to run local code 
> per the background call of a website is better?

I'm not suggesting anything other than what I said.

Darren

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