5 ms·
So, to summarize for the laypeople, if the user has Javascript and/or cookies disabled, this exploit will not work?
by anonymous 14y ago
So, to summarize for the laypeople, if the user has Javascript and/or cookies disabled, this exploit will not work?
- fakjshflaskjhf 14y agoJavascript just makes the attack faster, but it can be accomplished with raw html. Cookies are required though; it's what you are after when using this attack.
- anonymous 14y agoFascinating. And how about if the cookies are marked "secure"? (This can be done manually in some browsers, e.g., elinks).
- Daniel_Newby 14y agoHidden <iframe> elements would probably work just as well. It might even work with JacaScript turned. Have a page with nested iframes. Serve each one from a different IP address and have the server not answer right away. The server answers with the first iframe having a chosen URL while Eve snoops the wire. Eve tells the server which URL to use for the next iframe body that it sends. Repeat until the cookie is deduced. The server can use a nested tree of iframes to avoid having a bazillion iframes in the top level document.
- anonymous 14y agoAdd to the list of all the malicious things that can be done using <iframe>. Why <iframe> elements are even allowed by any purportedly "secure" browser is beyond me. Is their functionality really worth the risk?