4 ms·
By "in flux" I was intending to vaguely refer to the problems with the protocol which has led Firefox and Opera to ship with WebSockets disabled. I'm guessing w
by davidpadbury 16y ago
By "in flux" I was intending to vaguely refer to the problems with the protocol which has led Firefox and Opera to ship with WebSockets disabled. I'm guessing we're probably going to see some changes to it in the future. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
I honestly don't know a thing about the version of the protocol that they've implemented. It looks like one that they (Microsoft) have submitted - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montenegro-hybi-upgrade-hello-handshake-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montenegro-hybi-upgrade-hel....
That's cool you're seeing so many clients with WebSockets enabled.
- axod 16y agoAh true, I'd forgotten about the firefox and opera hoo-haw. Hopefully they sort that out ASAP It's a great shame really.
- davidpadbury 16y agoYeah - A "hoo-haw" is good. The quicker issues are brought to attention and resolved the better.
- axod 16y agoFWIW I think it was an absolute edge case bordering on silliness. if there is a crappy silly caching proxy, an attacker can use websocket to get it to cache things it shouldn't. I think the fact Chrome hasn't done anything about it, (especially since they can auto update and turn off support tomorrow if they wish), is telling.