January 2010 - Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

patch: .domain cookies from/to domain

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Johannes wrote: > To me it seems reasonable what other browsers do here, even if the > standard states it differently. I've discovered that the http-state working group is actively trying to come up with something that reflects what is good and sensible for clients and servers to do. So I'm reading through their mailing list archives and all that... What I can say so far is: I was very wrong when I thought that trying to follow the cookie RFCs was good or important.

Jan. 1, 2010

patch: .domain cookies from/to domain

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:18:06PM +0000, corvid wrote: > I wrote: > > Jorge wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 01:21:41AM +0000, corvid wrote: > > > > Like the patch says, > > > > /* > > > > * Technically, cookies set with a domain of .example.com cannot be sent > > > > * back to the host example.com, even if example.com set them in the first > > > > * place. Do most user agents allow it? Yes. Does a large percentage of the > > > > * web require it in order to work at all? Yes. > > > > */ > > > > > > > > The downside might be the scenario of sub.example.com setting a cookie > > > > that example.com didn't expect to receive, but if everyone else does it... > > > > > > AFAIS it would provide a very good way for tracking what pages > > > a user is reading to big hosting sites. e.g. blogspot.com > > > > I believe in that case, subdomains of blogspot.com would already be able > > to read/write a .blogspot.com cookie. > > > > > If you're using a unique IP, it may not add much, but if you're > > > behind a NAT or proxy or similar, this cookie singles out you. > > > > > > Considering most browsers allow these cookies, chances of > > > finding tracking code using this technique increases! Probably > > > only opaqued by the much bigger privacy hole javascript provides. > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > Unless someone tells me not to within the next few days, I'll commit > > > > something along the lines of this patch. > > > > > > I'd use a cookiesrc option set to NO by default instead of the > > > #define. > > > > > > Maybe allowing to set it by site (as the rest of cookiesrc) is > > > not a bad idea too. After all, people would enable it when they > > > need a specific site to work. > > > > Setting it by site sounds like a good idea. > > I'm thinking about the exact form of this now. > cookiesrc could look something like > example.com ACCEPT_SESSION SEND_DOTDOMAIN_COOKIES > but that's weird and hard to understand. > > Any thoughts on how to make something decent? Maybe I'm missing the point in the previous discussion, but do we really need this configurable? Why do we need to handle the host example.com differently from e.g. foo.example.com? To me it seems reasonable what other browsers do here, even if the standard states it differently.

Jan. 1, 2010

[bug]: CSS - attack of the mega-images

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

Hi Jeremy, On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 04:23:04PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote: > > See http://blog.worldlabel.com/2009/inkscape-0-47-totally-solid-with-lots-of-ne… > > Dillo inflates the images in the top toolbar to the full width of the > window. The problem is this CSS (taken from the original stylesheet > and simplified) > > a { > display:block; > float:left; > } > a img { > width:100%; > height:100%; > } > > I guess Dillo is interpreting 100% relative to the wrong length? > Firefox renders the images at normal size. > > (Minimal example attached.) Thanks for the nice example. Actually I don't quite understand how this piece of CSS works because I haven't looked at float: in detail yet. However, if I remove the float:left; part, then even firefox blows up the images. As dillo currently just ignores float:left, I'd say there is not much we can do for now - other thank implement float support of course :-) Cheers, Johannes

Jan. 1, 2010

patch: .domain cookies from/to domain

by corvid＠lavabit.com

I wrote: > Jorge wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 01:21:41AM +0000, corvid wrote: > > > Like the patch says, > > > /* > > > * Technically, cookies set with a domain of .example.com cannot be sent > > > * back to the host example.com, even if example.com set them in the first > > > * place. Do most user agents allow it? Yes. Does a large percentage of the > > > * web require it in order to work at all? Yes. > > > */ > > > > > > The downside might be the scenario of sub.example.com setting a cookie > > > that example.com didn't expect to receive, but if everyone else does it... > > > > AFAIS it would provide a very good way for tracking what pages > > a user is reading to big hosting sites. e.g. blogspot.com > > I believe in that case, subdomains of blogspot.com would already be able > to read/write a .blogspot.com cookie. > > > If you're using a unique IP, it may not add much, but if you're > > behind a NAT or proxy or similar, this cookie singles out you. > > > > Considering most browsers allow these cookies, chances of > > finding tracking code using this technique increases! Probably > > only opaqued by the much bigger privacy hole javascript provides. > > > > :) > > > > > Unless someone tells me not to within the next few days, I'll commit > > > something along the lines of this patch. > > > > I'd use a cookiesrc option set to NO by default instead of the > > #define. > > > > Maybe allowing to set it by site (as the rest of cookiesrc) is > > not a bad idea too. After all, people would enable it when they > > need a specific site to work. > > Setting it by site sounds like a good idea. I'm thinking about the exact form of this now. cookiesrc could look something like example.com ACCEPT_SESSION SEND_DOTDOMAIN_COOKIES but that's weird and hard to understand. Any thoughts on how to make something decent?

Jan. 1, 2010