- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

table/cell width problem

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:27:08AM +0000, corvid wrote: > > Also, I finally got around to looking into why the columns are strange > > on http://hg.dillo.org/dillo when I have remote style sheets enabled. > > > > Each row is a separate table, and the date and submitter fields have > > fixed widths specified in ems. That seems to work in general, but the > > problem is that the tables have width specified as 100%, which seems > > to make the table code forget about the column widths. > > IIRC a CSS-aware user agent can act as if old HTML presentation > directives weren't there. Which could apply here. > > OTOH I don't know whether this would cause more harm. Let's suppose that it had been specified as <table style="width:100%">, then.

Dec. 29, 2009

patch: .domain cookies from/to domain

by corvid＠lavabit.com

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.

Dec. 29, 2009

table/cell width problem

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:27:08AM +0000, corvid wrote: > Also, I finally got around to looking into why the columns are strange > on http://hg.dillo.org/dillo when I have remote style sheets enabled. > > Each row is a separate table, and the date and submitter fields have > fixed widths specified in ems. That seems to work in general, but the > problem is that the tables have width specified as 100%, which seems > to make the table code forget about the column widths. IIRC a CSS-aware user agent can act as if old HTML presentation directives weren't there. Which could apply here. OTOH I don't know whether this would cause more harm. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 29, 2009

patch: .domain cookies from/to domain

by jcid＠dillo.org

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 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. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 29, 2009

Problem while running Dillo2 browser on latest CVS LTIB code + IMX27 ADS

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 04:49:42PM +0530, Rajesh Marathe wrote: > Hi, > > We are working on IMX27 ADS board and have taken latest CVS based LTIB > code. I have included 'Dillo2' and 'fltk' packages as my objective would > be to run the browser dillo on the imx27 system. > > After the Linux boots up, I go to the console and try to run the > browser. But, I get the following error: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > mx27# > mx27# > mx27# ./dillo > paths: Cannot open file > '//.dillo/dillorc' > paths: > Using /usr/etc/dillo/dillorc > paths: Cannot open file > '//.dillo/keysrc' > paths: > Using /usr/etc/dillo/keysrc > dillo_dns_init: Here we go! > (threaded) > Disabling > cookies. > Can't open display > ":0.0" > mx27# > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I did try to debug and found out that the function fltk::open_display > returns the above display error. > > How do I set the display correctly so that the browser's opening page > gets displayed on the LCD panel connected to IMX27 board ? Assuming you have the X server already running, run dillo as the same user that has the X server running (not root). Dillo needs the X server (or kdrive) to run. If you can run the fltk demo, dillo should run too. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 28, 2009

Problem while running Dillo2 browser on latest CVS LTIB code + IMX27 ADS

by rmarathe＠i-rode.com

Hi, We are working on IMX27 ADS board and have taken latest CVS based LTIB code. I have included 'Dillo2' and 'fltk' packages as my objective would be to run the browser dillo on the imx27 system. After the Linux boots up, I go to the console and try to run the browser. But, I get the following error: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- mx27# mx27# mx27# ./dillo paths: Cannot open file '//.dillo/dillorc' paths: Using /usr/etc/dillo/dillorc paths: Cannot open file '//.dillo/keysrc' paths: Using /usr/etc/dillo/keysrc dillo_dns_init: Here we go! (threaded) Disabling cookies. Can't open display ":0.0" mx27# ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I did try to debug and found out that the function fltk::open_display returns the above display error. How do I set the display correctly so that the browser's opening page gets displayed on the LCD panel connected to IMX27 board ? regards, Rajesh Marathe.

Dec. 28, 2009

web bug save?

by corvid＠lavabit.com

bb wrote: > You sent me an option switch to forbid dillo to request another domain > as that of the actually used page: > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2009-September/006844.ht… > > How can I patch Dillo in this way? > It might be useful to have that as an option in Dillo, I am shure not > every user is comfortable with that restriction. I just remembered that I had another version later in the thread, and I just took a couple of minutes to get the patch to apply cleanly again. http://www.dillo.org/test/filtering.2.patch from the main directory of the dillo source, "patch -p1 < filtering.2.patch" and then put filter_auto_requests=same_domain in ~/.dillorc

Dec. 28, 2009

patch: .domain cookies from/to domain

by corvid＠lavabit.com

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... Unless someone tells me not to within the next few days, I'll commit something along the lines of this patch. PS I just committed a change today to fix up expiration/replacement of cookies, which was somewhat broken in general, and especially broken with respect to session cookies, so if anyone out there uses cookies much, please test!

Dec. 28, 2009

secure cookies

by corvid＠lavabit.com

[cookies seem to be working for me after all, despite the error messages] Cookies can have an optional Secure attribute that instructs the user agent to send the cookie only over a secure connection. I can't find anything at all saying that they can only be set by secure connections. This seems strange to me. I'd think that the man in the middle could have fun by giving the user some other session key or whatever when, say, an image is being retrieved over plain http.

Dec. 27, 2009

web bug save?

by bblochl＠arcor.de

Jorge Arellano Cid schrieb: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 05:46:22PM +0000, corvid wrote: > >> bb wrote: >> >>> *On http://www.dillo.org/ I found the item News and a remark: >>> >>> 03-Jul-2009 Dillo-2.1.1 has been released to provide a security fix >>> for malicious images. I am not shure what is meant with **malicious >>> images? Are this so called Web bugs? If yes - how is the blocking >>> done? >>> >> Here's the advisory about the image size problem: >> http://www.ocert.org/advisories/ocert-2009-008.html >> >> >>> I think there are some strategies possible to prevent a browser from >>> a Web Bug attack: >>> >>> 1. Dont allow to load gifs or pngs from another URL as the actual >>> page comes from. (I think to remember that firefox **originally >>> **had such an option - not available in the actual version.) >>> >> Here's the beginning of a thread and a patch experimenting with this: >> http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2009-September/006844.ht… >> >> (the "same host" option was found to be useless, but I'm still >> interested in >> "same domain") >> >> >>> 2. I think one might prepare HTML/CSS not to load such gifs or pngs >>> smaller than say about 5x5. Do you think such a measure is feasible >>> in Dillo and could that really stop Web Bugs? But I think that there >>> should not be a problem to make Web Bugs larger than 1x1pixel as >>> long as they are transparent - may be I am wrong, I am just a simple >>> minded user, not a web professional. So such a limit might be useless? >>> > > AFAIS your analysis is correct. There's no problem in increasing the > web bug image size, specially on these broadband days... > > Personally I have hopes on restricting resource loading from other > sites, > but as corvid cites, it's non trivial and requires careful thought. > > As a highly interested user, you may gather some information on > web bugs, techniques to avoid them etc. and post a summary of > your findings here. That would help a lot. We have the knowledge > on how to code dillo and restricted time to work on it. If you > can help us everybody gains. > > > >> Here's a post and patch experimenting with rejecting images with a >> dimension >> of 0: >> http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2009-December/007101.html >> >> >> >>> Are there other ideas? I am highly interested in that Web Bug problem. >>> >> I'm glad to hear this, since user interest may encourage things to >> happen... >> > > I'm very interested in this topic, although haven't found free time > these days... > > > Thank you for your response. The begin of my web bug adventure was some curiousity as I gamed around with http://livehttpheaders.mozdev.org. I found some strange things, and momentarily felt like the guy in "The blue velvet", finding an cut ear and come into touch with an strange and eval world outside a wardrobe. The real eval things can only be done by javascript - so dillo is on the save side. It may be of general Interest: I found as a countermeasure the plugin ghostery for firefox. ghostery has a large list of known web bugs and can block it. Most of that software one may find is googles urchin.js, but ggogle has a new software ga.js. There was even launched "Turn Key Web Analytics In A Box" on Friday, December 18, 2009, see http://www.coradiant.com/news/091209_analyticsbox.htm. The List of web bugs you can find: http://code.google.com/p/ghostery/source/browse/trunk/firefox/ghostery-stat… One may check out a read-only working copy anonymously over HTTP: http://code.google.com/p/ghostery/source/checkout As I just pointed out, a dillo user cannot be tracked by any javascript code. But even a simple Web Bug with a http-rquest to a tracking server can get a lot of Information about the request AFAIK that is client IP address, certainly the request date/time, the page requested, HTTP code, bytes served, user agent, and referer. So the tracker knows the URL of the page containing the bug and allows the server to determine which particular Web page the user has accessed. But more, the URL of the bug can be appended with an arbitrary string in various ways with extra information to identify the loading conditions of the bug. This extra information can be added while sending the page or by JavaScript scripts after the download (but as ponted out - no Javascript with Dillo). Web bugs can also be used in combination with HTTP cookies (if there are any) like any other object transferred using the HTTP protocol. One might say, use a proxy. But I found that nearly all of the free proxys are real trojans and sending such web bugs, most often in the advertising pictures. I asked a couple of the providers of free proxy services. The usual answer was, that they do not send web bugs, but the bad advertisers do. And usually they offered ma thei payed service that is free of advertising. And very often that web bug requests will NOT be send via the proxy!! You sent me an option switch to forbid dillo to request another domain as that of the actually used page: http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2009-September/006844.ht… How can I patch Dillo in this way? It might be useful to have that as an option in Dillo, I am shure not every user is comfortable with that restriction. Seasons greetings BB

Dec. 27, 2009