- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 16:56:44 -0700
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>, W3C Emailing list for WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Thursday 2010-06-03 22:44 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Zack Weinberg wrote: > >Mozilla happens to treat the absence of a content-type, an unparseable > >content-type, and a handful of 'sentinel' values that are not > >*supposed* to appear on the wire (but nothing prevents this) as > >equivalent to text/css. However, CVE-2010-0654 (see > >https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=524223 for extensive > >discussion) makes me think this is not a good idea. > > Do we know what browser vendors did exactly the last couple of times > this issue came up? I recall for instance CAN-2002-0191 in 2002 In 2002 we forbade cross-domain access to CSS style sheets through the object model (despite that the primary problem in that case was with CSSUnknownRule, which we didn't implement): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135267 > and > <http://www.hacker.co.il/security/ie/css_import.html> in 2005. It is I'm having trouble telling from this how it differs from the 2002 issue. > mentioned in MS02-023 for example, but details are scarce. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 23:57:16 UTC