New answers tagged

2

This is an interesting question why I was looking into the source code of Chromium too see how they do it. The Answer It is nearly impossible to implement a 100% reliable feature to prevent a screenshot that will be used in the most visited view. You have to hide the sensitive content right the moment the service is storing the data. Which might happen all ...


1

Well, to quote the extension's description, it isn't just for downloading Facebook videos: Download and save videos from any website (not only Facebook videos) (…) Downloads almost from 99% of video hosting websites So, it makes sense for it to request permision for other websites as well. Edit: After downloading and unpacking the ...


1

For most major browsers that are used in the tech community, the only thing stopping them from being evil is the fact that they rely on open source code, and are widely poked and prodded. Unfortunately, these browsers also include add-ons and extensions, which are less likely to be well-vetted and so even more likely to be causing insecurity. It is indeed ...


6

Is there anything stopping from web browsers snooping into our activities? Nope, not really. That's a bit like asking Is there anything stopping my keyboard from recording my keystrokes? In theory, we are interacting directly with the keyboard / web browser, which in turn talks to other components for us, and we are trusting that it is acting in our ...


7

Why do Chrome and openssl disagree over signature algorithm? Because they get different certificates. The reason for this is that Chrome uses Server Name Indication (SNI) whileopenssl s_client does not, at least not by default. If you look close not only the signature algorithm is different but also the subject of the certificate: $ openssl s_client -...


1

Here, the vulnerability does not talk about some program running on your machine. The problem is data being overwritten at the wrong place. You can find the details of the vulnerability here: http://blog.talosintel.com/2016/06/pdfium.html#more As mentioned in the webpage: If in the above call to opj_calloc, which is a calloc wrapper, numcomps value ...


2

In case of cacert.org, they are presenting a self-signed certificate and that's why your browser complains. There is no trust chain that leads from the certificate to a root CA that you trust. If you were using a Linux distribution that comes with their certificate pre-installed, you wouldn't see a warning. It would be inferred that by using such a system ...


5

Presumably you mean the following four: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/51.0.2704.63 Safari/537.36 most Web browsers use a User-Agent string value as follows: Mozilla/[version] ([system and browser information]) [platform] ([platform details]) [extensions]. Mozilla is a byproduct of browser wars. ...


1

Regardless transport (NFC, USB, BLE) The U2F client (Chrome) merely repacks and forwards the challenge to the device. All crypto is done in the device's secure element. Basically, the device signs the challenge (provided by the relying party), along with some meta data (provided by the client) such as what URL the browser was currently visiting, etc (to ...


1

There are several ways such an ad-injecting malware might work and it does not even need to be installed on your system. Common ways are: Browser extension: there were several prominent cases where common browser extension were sold and went malicious. These probably can do anything, including manipulating data accessed by https. Local proxies. In this ...



Top 50 recent answers are included