New answers tagged html
Everyone seem to forget that computers get stolen on daily bases, most computers run windows. You can change a users password without ever logging in on a windows computer. How much damage do you think can be done by a stolen computer with all autocomplete information saved in the browser? And most don't even have a password protection for browser ...
Of course it is always safest to do the sanitizing on the server side before displaying the input back to the user. It can be done more quickly and easily in the browser, but any code running in the browser should not be considered entirety trusted; it could be modified or disabled.
Not necessarily, and it wouldn't be recommended. Admittedly it is likely to prevent DOM-based XSS in the majority of cases (in an HTML output context anyway), but not all as detailed on OWASP... Many security training curriculums and papers advocate the blind usage of HTML encoding to resolve XSS. This logically seems to be prudent advice as the ...
As Gumbo mentioned in his comment, it does not matter what you read in, but it does matter what you display after the fact. To simply answer your question, no. jQuery's .val() does not have any filtering that will protect you from XSS. You could perhaps take in the value into var toBeDisplayed and then perform your own filtering before it gets relayed to be ...
The problem is that this one setting simultaneously controls the behavior of two similar but sufficiently dissimilar functions in the browser such that an optimal result is difficult to achieve. First, we have what you might call "smart" or "naïve" or "automatic" auto-complete. This is the original auto-complete technology. As you fill in forms on various ...
Depends. If the website accepts user-submitted content, it's best to keep the XSS and nosniff headers on, in case they provide a loophole. Lack of HSTS is also fine; however ensure that you have your cookies separated from HTTP and HTTPS, just in case.
Top 50 recent answers are included