<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Firefox Light Speed Update and NoScript XSLT Protection</title>
	<link>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/</link>
	<description>Giorgio Maone's answers to the Web, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:55:45 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: djh</title>
		<link>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-12737</link>
		<dc:creator>djh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 19:49:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-12737</guid>
		<description>similar to me above in this thread, I am xslt developer and would like a method to deploy client-side xslt transformations reliably and not be hacked. Can you tell me best methodology to permit XSLT transformation of XML in FF 2.0 and higher?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>similar to me above in this thread, I am xslt developer and would like a method to deploy client-side xslt transformations reliably and not be hacked. Can you tell me best methodology to permit XSLT transformation of XML in FF 2.0 and higher?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pseudonymous Coward</title>
		<link>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-12153</link>
		<dc:creator>Pseudonymous Coward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 03:35:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-12153</guid>
		<description>I don't think it's a good idea for NoScript 1.9.2.4 to add a Adblock Plus whitelist. It violates user privacy and control to some extent. Would appreciate if you would remove it. Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a good idea for NoScript 1.9.2.4 to add a Adblock Plus whitelist. It violates user privacy and control to some extent. Would appreciate if you would remove it. Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: me</title>
		<link>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11790</link>
		<dc:creator>me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:48:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11790</guid>
		<description>salut,
me uses noscript and got a website that depends on xslt. me uses xml that semanticaly makes up the content and xsl to render html from it. its an entirely practical approach to xml and i really like that the major browsers are able to render it this days - keeps the transform away from my server.
today me got surprised - the website wont work, hacked the apache content type until me found out noscript blocked the xsl
me understands the concerns not to run xsl on the client side, but leaving ffox in a state where it cannot present the xml is not a good idea eighter...
display the source, replace with a simplified xsl, but dont just prevent xsl from transforming. looks like plaintext, but worse.
example xml:
File: index.xml
this is text.                                                                                                                            
  &lt;code&gt;
and so on

hopefully this opens a new view to the xsl issue.
for me it is enough to know to enable my site. maybe some applications break similar or worse as mine did - it would be easy to let the user know.

peace
--me&lt;/code&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>salut,<br />
me uses noscript and got a website that depends on xslt. me uses xml that semanticaly makes up the content and xsl to render html from it. its an entirely practical approach to xml and i really like that the major browsers are able to render it this days - keeps the transform away from my server.<br />
today me got surprised - the website wont work, hacked the apache content type until me found out noscript blocked the xsl<br />
me understands the concerns not to run xsl on the client side, but leaving ffox in a state where it cannot present the xml is not a good idea eighter&#8230;<br />
display the source, replace with a simplified xsl, but dont just prevent xsl from transforming. looks like plaintext, but worse.<br />
example xml:<br />
File: index.xml<br />
this is text.                                                                                                                            </p>
<div class="codesnip-container" >and so on</p>
<p>hopefully this opens a new view to the xsl issue.<br />
for me it is enough to know to enable my site. maybe some applications break similar or worse as mine did - it would be easy to let the user know.</p>
<p>peace<br />
&#8211;me</p></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrie=l</title>
		<link>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11731</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrie=l</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:28:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11731</guid>
		<description>Hello there!

well i have a theoretical question.  first of all, i really appreciate your plugin, it works great.  my question regards the use of javascript:

at this time, should it be considered best practice to never include javascript authentification mechanisms (a.k.a. username and passwd)
for logins on web pages?!  in other words,   i notice visiting various sites across the web, that  authenticating (authentifying?)  mechanisms always seem to work, but there have  been exceptions............

another scenario might be that sometime in the future, i might consider building a website/web server, but because of my sysadmin/networking background, i would never choose to use a bunch of interactive eye candy on sites, capabilities which can be provided by javascript or flash for example.    

i have to confess i am not so informed of the inner workings of java or javascript, but i do understand the concepts of buffer overflows or similiar exploits that can be deployed via a running process's priveledges etc--in other words, i am looking at this from a infosec view.   

Many thanks for your help and your tools.   It's also a great learning resource for those not so skilled in the inner workings of web technologies.  

regards,

Adriel</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello there!</p>
<p>well i have a theoretical question.  first of all, i really appreciate your plugin, it works great.  my question regards the use of javascript:</p>
<p>at this time, should it be considered best practice to never include javascript authentification mechanisms (a.k.a. username and passwd)<br />
for logins on web pages?!  in other words,   i notice visiting various sites across the web, that  authenticating (authentifying?)  mechanisms always seem to work, but there have  been exceptions&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;</p>
<p>another scenario might be that sometime in the future, i might consider building a website/web server, but because of my sysadmin/networking background, i would never choose to use a bunch of interactive eye candy on sites, capabilities which can be provided by javascript or flash for example.    </p>
<p>i have to confess i am not so informed of the inner workings of java or javascript, but i do understand the concepts of buffer overflows or similiar exploits that can be deployed via a running process&#8217;s priveledges etc&#8211;in other words, i am looking at this from a infosec view.   </p>
<p>Many thanks for your help and your tools.   It&#8217;s also a great learning resource for those not so skilled in the inner workings of web technologies.  </p>
<p>regards,</p>
<p>Adriel</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hackademix.net » NoScript on BBC News!</title>
		<link>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11683</link>
		<dc:creator>hackademix.net » NoScript on BBC News!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:36:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11683</guid>
		<description>[...] reader “John Drinkwater” just informed me that the BBC News’ “Click” TV programme aired yesterday (March 27th 2009) had one [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] reader “John Drinkwater” just informed me that the BBC News’ “Click” TV programme aired yesterday (March 27th 2009) had one [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Giorgio</title>
		<link>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11682</link>
		<dc:creator>Giorgio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11682</guid>
		<description>@&lt;b&gt;John Drinkwater&lt;/b&gt;:
don't mind, I've &lt;a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7960000/newsid_7968900?redirect=7968965.stm&#038;news=1&#038;nbwm=1&#038;bbram=1&#038;bbwm=1&#038;nbram=1" rel="nofollow"&gt;found it&lt;/a&gt;, about at 20':30'' :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<b>John Drinkwater</b>:<br />
don&#8217;t mind, I&#8217;ve <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7960000/newsid_7968900?redirect=7968965.stm&#038;news=1&#038;nbwm=1&#038;bbram=1&#038;bbwm=1&#038;nbram=1" rel="nofollow">found it</a>, about at 20&#8242;:30&#8221; :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Giorgio</title>
		<link>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11681</link>
		<dc:creator>Giorgio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:05:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11681</guid>
		<description>@&lt;b&gt;John Drinkwater&lt;/b&gt;:
Great news, thanks for sharing!
Any way to watch it online?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<b>John Drinkwater</b>:<br />
Great news, thanks for sharing!<br />
Any way to watch it online?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Drinkwater</title>
		<link>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11680</link>
		<dc:creator>John Drinkwater</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:57:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11680</guid>
		<description>BBC’s Click television programme (a weekly tech show) just had a 1 minute slot mentioning noscript, should get you some users ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BBC’s Click television programme (a weekly tech show) just had a 1 minute slot mentioning noscript, should get you some users ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Giorgio</title>
		<link>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11675</link>
		<dc:creator>Giorgio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:35:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11675</guid>
		<description>@&lt;b&gt;Aerik&lt;/b&gt;:
ABP can theoretically block any load attempt (it uses the same base content blocking mechanism as NoScript), but can be also circumvented, while a good 30% of NoScript code is meant to prevent any circumvention. 

XSL documents are stylesheets used to transform other XML documents, usually for presentation purposes. ABP does already stylesheet blocking, so you can block XSLs if you want (with some effort to tell CSS from XSL, which I'm not sure how trivial is in ABP, unless it checks also for MIME type). But again, if you're doing it for security purposes you should look elsewhere, because a motivated attacker will pwn you anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<b>Aerik</b>:<br />
ABP can theoretically block any load attempt (it uses the same base content blocking mechanism as NoScript), but can be also circumvented, while a good 30% of NoScript code is meant to prevent any circumvention. </p>
<p>XSL documents are stylesheets used to transform other XML documents, usually for presentation purposes. ABP does already stylesheet blocking, so you can block XSLs if you want (with some effort to tell CSS from XSL, which I&#8217;m not sure how trivial is in ABP, unless it checks also for MIME type). But again, if you&#8217;re doing it for security purposes you should look elsewhere, because a motivated attacker will pwn you anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aerik</title>
		<link>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11671</link>
		<dc:creator>Aerik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:54:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hackademix.net/2009/03/27/firefox-light-speed-update-and-noscript-xslt-protection/#comment-11671</guid>
		<description>Wladamir made adblock plus capable of blocking XBL and dtd's.  I wonder if he can make it capable of blocking XLT?  It seems plausible.  To date, ABP has been able to block anything defined as &#34;active content&#34; that noscript can. So, they should be able to do that, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wladamir made adblock plus capable of blocking XBL and dtd&#8217;s.  I wonder if he can make it capable of blocking XLT?  It seems plausible.  To date, ABP has been able to block anything defined as &quot;active content&quot; that noscript can. So, they should be able to do that, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
