5 ms·
This isn't entirely without precedent. Firefox does something similar by greying out the `www` in the UI, Chrome just decided to take things a step further by h
by Ajedi32 8y ago
This isn't entirely without precedent. Firefox does something similar by greying out the `www` in the UI, Chrome just decided to take things a step further by hiding it entirely.
- psetq 8y agoHuge difference IMO. I'd explain your example as firefox highlighting the domain part of the URI.
- kenhwang 8y agoFF grays out everything that's not the domain name, not just `www` and more importantly, not because it's `www`.
- larrik 8y agoFF greys out all the subdomains, not just www. Good for anti-phishing, I guess.
- gsnedders 8y agoFirefox's behaviour is that is makes everything except the eTLD+1 grey, because that's what's normally useful for evaluating authenticity. There's no distinction made between `www` and any other subdomain.
- tinus_hn 8y agoThese are all in the same origin so they can read cookies and manipulate pages.
- gsnedders 8y agoSubdomains are in different origins; cookies have their own weird notion of security.
- Sohcahtoa82 8y agoThis is not true unless the cookie is specifically marked to be domain-wide. There was a time when IE misbehaved. Not sure if this fixed in Edge: https://www.mxsasha.eu/blog/2014/03/04/definitive-guide-to-cookie-domains/ https://www.mxsasha.eu/blog/2014/03/04/definitive-guide-to-c...
- gsnedders 8y ago> There was a time when IE misbehaved. Not sure if this fixed in Edge: https://www.mxsasha.eu/blog/2014/03/04/definitive-guide-to-c.. https://www.mxsasha.eu/blog/2014/03/04/definitive-guide-to-c.... Pretty sure that was fixed in Edge and IE (as a security issue).
- Sohcahtoa82 8y agoWhile that certainly may be the case, it's been shown time and time again how many users (and even sys admins!) are bad at installing patches.
- sdinsn 8y ago> Firefox does something similar by greying out So, not similar at all?