3 ms·
That's completely untrue :P You're assuming that there is some supreme Rendering Engine which maps code to a single canonical output. In reality, every browser
by nbpoole 16y ago
That's completely untrue :P
You're assuming that there is some supreme Rendering Engine which maps code to a single canonical output. In reality, every browser renders things slightly differently and a malicious script would take advantage of that (while rendering things "normally" for the scanner). See also: cloaking (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloaking&oldid=408912417 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloaking&oldid...)
- cookiecaper 16y agoYou're right of course, but again, the scanner would not go after sophisticated or complex attacks, but naive attacks implemented by posers. It's just a matter of time before everything we currently consider "secure" is cracked; I reckon that eventually they'll have computers that can bruteforce 2048-bit encryption keys (and I've seen all of the theoretical calculations about the computing power needed to do that, so we don't need to repeat that here) in a day or less. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make the best of what we have at our disposal, whether that's encryption or detection techniques to catch at least some bad guys.