Re: [Full-Disclosure] shell:windows command question

[Darren Reed <avalon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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