<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Firefoxurl URI Handler Flaw</title>
	<atom:link href="http://xs-sniper.com/blog/2007/07/17/firefoxurl-uri-handler-flaw/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://xs-sniper.com/blog/2007/07/17/firefoxurl-uri-handler-flaw/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Security in an Uncivilized World…</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:39:08 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: J a C k N e w s &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Top Tep Web Hacks of 2007</title>
		<link>http://xs-sniper.com/blog/2007/07/17/firefoxurl-uri-handler-flaw/comment-page-1/#comment-265</link>
		<dc:creator>J a C k N e w s &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Top Tep Web Hacks of 2007</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:11:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xs-sniper.com/blog/2007/07/17/firefoxurl-uri-handler-flaw/#comment-265</guid>
		<description>[...] Firefoxurl URI Handler Flaw [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Firefoxurl URI Handler Flaw [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: neobe&#8217;s Blog - Actualités Stockage et Sécurité &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Le top 10 des hacks "web" 2007</title>
		<link>http://xs-sniper.com/blog/2007/07/17/firefoxurl-uri-handler-flaw/comment-page-1/#comment-263</link>
		<dc:creator>neobe&#8217;s Blog - Actualités Stockage et Sécurité &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Le top 10 des hacks "web" 2007</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:27:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xs-sniper.com/blog/2007/07/17/firefoxurl-uri-handler-flaw/#comment-263</guid>
		<description>[...] Problème de gestion des URI dans Firefox [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Problème de gestion des URI dans Firefox [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joseph Brenner</title>
		<link>http://xs-sniper.com/blog/2007/07/17/firefoxurl-uri-handler-flaw/comment-page-1/#comment-73</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Brenner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:26:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xs-sniper.com/blog/2007/07/17/firefoxurl-uri-handler-flaw/#comment-73</guid>
		<description>This is just a windows-only problem, isn&#039;t it? 
(Isn&#039;t it worth mentioning these things?  Firefox does indeed run on other platforms, you know.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is just a windows-only problem, isn&#8217;t it?<br />
(Isn&#8217;t it worth mentioning these things?  Firefox does indeed run on other platforms, you know.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathan McFeters</title>
		<link>http://xs-sniper.com/blog/2007/07/17/firefoxurl-uri-handler-flaw/comment-page-1/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan McFeters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:26:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xs-sniper.com/blog/2007/07/17/firefoxurl-uri-handler-flaw/#comment-4</guid>
		<description>Yes, I think that the final paragraph here is the real crux of the issue.  Everyone&#039;s pointing fingers, asking who&#039;s fault it is.  It&#039;s everyones.  Two things here:

1.) IE and other browsers which don&#039;t properly sanitize what is sent thru the URI&#039;s to back-end applications (and IE is not the only one), putting users at risk to command line argument injection and possibly worse.
2.) Application developers CHOOSE to create their own URI&#039;s for whatever purposes they intend them for.  I&#039;ve been trying to figure out reasons why developers use them, seems quite a mix... installation, registration, interaction, etc.  BUT the main point is that the developers have CHOSEN to FORCE IE to pass data to their applications thru URI&#039;s.  This is especially damning for applications that have switches that provide a lot of functionality, like FireFox and Netscape Navigator&#039;s -chrome flag for instance.

Let&#039;s just everyone keep pointing fingers and we&#039;ll see where the blame lies after DEFCON.  Otherwise, let&#039;s get to cracking and fix these bugs and be responsible about the choices we make when programming our applications.  Let&#039;s get one thing straight, Microsoft didn&#039;t FORCE anyone to use URI&#039;s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I think that the final paragraph here is the real crux of the issue.  Everyone&#8217;s pointing fingers, asking who&#8217;s fault it is.  It&#8217;s everyones.  Two things here:</p>
<p>1.) IE and other browsers which don&#8217;t properly sanitize what is sent thru the URI&#8217;s to back-end applications (and IE is not the only one), putting users at risk to command line argument injection and possibly worse.<br />
2.) Application developers CHOOSE to create their own URI&#8217;s for whatever purposes they intend them for.  I&#8217;ve been trying to figure out reasons why developers use them, seems quite a mix&#8230; installation, registration, interaction, etc.  BUT the main point is that the developers have CHOSEN to FORCE IE to pass data to their applications thru URI&#8217;s.  This is especially damning for applications that have switches that provide a lot of functionality, like FireFox and Netscape Navigator&#8217;s -chrome flag for instance.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s just everyone keep pointing fingers and we&#8217;ll see where the blame lies after DEFCON.  Otherwise, let&#8217;s get to cracking and fix these bugs and be responsible about the choices we make when programming our applications.  Let&#8217;s get one thing straight, Microsoft didn&#8217;t FORCE anyone to use URI&#8217;s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.504 seconds -->
