- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 04:35:02 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20034 rcabanie <cabanier@adobe.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cabanier@adobe.com Assignee|jaymunro@microsoft.com |cabanier@adobe.com --- Comment #8 from rcabanie <cabanier@adobe.com> --- (In reply to comment #7) > > When you has normal XHR code there is per default an validation of the same > > host. > > Yes, but hosts can opt in to loads from them. > > And while browsers can load images from anywhere, and draw them into a > canvas, they can only getImageData the result if the image was from the same > host or if the host opted into it, just like XHR. > > > Also any Virus detection tools can block it when they found a signature of > > malicious text (code). > > Again, if the web page is not cooperating, right? If the web page and the > server are cooperating, then they can just obfuscate the source code (rot13, > encrypt, encode as an image, whatever). > > It really would help if you answered my questions about your attack model... > because as far as I can tell, getImageData doesn't allow anything > XMLHttpRequest didn't already allow. I agree. A script has multiple other ways to obfuscate malicious code. This is an interesting way of new way of transmitting JS code, but it doesn't open up a new attack vector since it's easy to encrypt JS. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2012 04:35:04 UTC