4 ms·
> okaying a replay attack When you permit a proxy to replay your content, it's just caching. It's not an "attack." (If the proxy can replay your content withou
by dfabulich 8y ago
> okaying a replay attack
When you permit a proxy to replay your content, it's just caching. It's not an "attack." (If the proxy can replay your content without your permission, that would be an attack.)
- tyingq 8y agoI believe AMP required inserting a piece of Google controlled and hosted JavaScript in your content from the very beginning. So the cat was pretty much out of the bag on this already.
- themacguffinman 8y agoThey're certainly not doing it without the website owner's permission. It's disingenuous to call it an attack.
- tyingq 8y agoYes, that's fair. I meant more in terms of ceding control...that's a prerequisite for AMP, and always has been.
- paavoova 8y agoSo if you block this Google JS, you cannot access said AMP page? Does AMP implicitly mandate users subscribe not only to said content provider but the third-party AMP host?
- tyingq 8y agoYes, you have to include it. "AMP pages must...Contain a <script async src="https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js "></script> tag inside their <head> tag." https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/start/create/basic_markup https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/start/cre... Their special tags[1] won't render without it, and I suspect Google won't include it in their SERPS if it's not valid AMP. [1] https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/learn/spec/amphtml?format=websites#html-tags https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/learn/spe...