- From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:56:40 -0400
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote: > On 10/16/09 4:12 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: >> >> I realise this is only one of dozens of ways that HTML is unfriendly >> to security, but, well, this seems like a bad idea - if the page >> thinks it is embedding, say, some flash, it seems like a pretty bad >> idea to allow the (possibly untrusted) site providing the "flash" to >> run whatever it wants in its place. > > This cuts both ways. ?If a site allows me to upload images and I upload an > HTML file with some script in it and tell it it's a GIF (e.g. via the name) > an then put an <object type="text/html" > data="http://this.other.site/my.gif"> on my site... ?then I just injected > script into a different domain if we let @type override the server-provided > header. > > This is, imo, a much bigger problem than that of people embedding content > from an untrusted site and getting content X instead of content Y, > especially because content X can't actually access the page that contains > it, right? Flash can, for example. > > -Boris >
Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 14:56:40 UTC