How to clean up __proto__ (was: Why we need to clean up __proto__)
John J Barton
johnjbarton at johnjbarton.com
Fri Dec 30 09:05:00 PST 2011
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 3:53 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 30/12/2011 02:28, John J Barton a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Le 30/12/2011 01:00, Lasse Reichstein a écrit :
>> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com>
>> I've been thinking about this "run first" idea for some time. Since on a
>> webpage, security seems to depend on your ability to run code first, it
>> would be interesting if there was a way to ensure that some code
>> (preferably defensive) is run before *any* other code. Though I find
>> this interesting, I'm still not sure whether this would be a good or bad
>> idea. I'm also clueless on how it would look like.
>> Creative ideas welcome.
> The browser runs first: what can't it do that you want to support?
> I was thinking of the case of XSS for instance where your code is in
> competition with unexpected and malicious code.
How did this competition begin?
A use case for JS security environment is loading app components
cross-site. The other site is 'trusted' in that you believe it has code
helpful to the user. But you want to limit its control, for reliability
rather than security in the normal sense. Is this what you have in mind?
> What I've said before applies and even against an XSS attack, you can
> prevent cookie theft as long as you run first.
> I can't see a way for the browser to enforce that trusted code run before
> untrusted code.
What causes 'untrusted' code to run at all? You must be doing something to
cause the browser to load code outside of normal methods. That 'cause' is
To put this another way, what ever runs first *is* the trusted code.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss