World: r3wp
[Plugin-2] Browser Plugins
older newer | first last |
JoshM 16-Jun-2006 [1195x2] | The cookie/cache idea is interesting. Need to think on that one a bit. |
Here's a few components of Trusted Scripts (this is only a draft -- open for feedback): * Default security model is tight -- how tight is TBD. * Developers that want to take advantage of Trusted Scripts, i.e. to lower security for a production app, first must buy a license.key from RT. * license.key unlocks "features" and "permissions". Features are things like encryption within the script. Permissions include file sandbox, domain restrictions, dll loading permissions, etc. * license.key will contain contact info, so we can track down the author of a malicious signed script if necessary. | |
Volker 16-Jun-2006 [1197] | Sounds in line with sdk: features for money. and you get some identity-check by money, good too. But you need something for the user to know what he is going to use. with url that is simple: stuff on this page. with signing its quite obfuscated. Shall i allow everything which RT gives a thumb up? Or are certicitates hardwired to domains? |
JoshM 16-Jun-2006 [1198] | Volker, good point. We may also provide a certificate verification dialog, i.e. "Joe Shmo from company XYZ produced this verified REBOL script. Would you like to allow it to run?" or something to that effect....I'm not positive here....just tossing ideas out there. |
Henrik 16-Jun-2006 [1199] | who provides verification? |
JoshM 16-Jun-2006 [1200] | REBOL Technologies. |
Henrik 16-Jun-2006 [1201] | do they have time and resources to sift through thousands of expertly crafted scripts per day? (just being positive about a future scenario :-)) |
JoshM 16-Jun-2006 [1202x2] | We would not be verifying the script itself, we would be verifying the publisher. If the publisher signs a malicous script, we have detailed contact info to track him down. |
That is the model used today in Authenticode and other code-signing technologies. | |
james_nak 16-Jun-2006 [1204] | http://www.rebol.com/plugin/web-plugin-install.htmlJosh, it that URL really supposed to auto load the plug-in? I'm getting an error when it actually tries to install it. |
JoshM 16-Jun-2006 [1205x2] | We're, uh, working on that now :) |
Are you running FireFox? | |
james_nak 16-Jun-2006 [1207] | Great. Thought it was me. Yes, FF |
JoshM 16-Jun-2006 [1208] | Yes, we're looking into that now. |
james_nak 16-Jun-2006 [1209x2] | No problem. Thanks. |
Actually, pg-2 is not working in IE either. However, it seems to go farther; I see a box where the app should appear but no app. | |
JoshM 16-Jun-2006 [1211] | james, in IE, do you see the information bar at the top of the page requesing your permission to install the plugin? |
james_nak 16-Jun-2006 [1212] | In IE no. FF, yes, but install fails. |
JoshM 16-Jun-2006 [1213] | We are pleased to announce a new release of REBOL/Plugin. This release includes several new features, including: * Multiple instance support -- you can now have up to 5 instances within one IE process. * Automatic updating -- after this release, backwards-compatible updates will come automatically with user consent (no uninstall required). * Smooth install for FireFox and Mozilla.org-based browsers *Now compatible with Opera and all Mozilla browsers compatible with npruntime. *do-browser now functions in Mozilla. |
james_nak 16-Jun-2006 [1214] | It might be me. Let me uninstall first. I did this in FF but not IE. Hold on... |
JoshM 16-Jun-2006 [1215x4] | To install the new plugin, please follow the steps listed at http://www.rebol.com/plugin/install.html. |
Note: You MUST remove previous versions of the plugin before installing the new plugin. Please follow the steps in the above install guide. Also, FireFox/Mozilla users: You MUST add rebol.com to your list of approved software installation web sites. Again, please follow the steps in the above install guide. | |
Please post feedback to this group. We'd love to hear your what you think! | |
James, please see the instructions in the install guide related to uninstallation of previous versions and adding rebol.com to your approved sites list. | |
james_nak 16-Jun-2006 [1219x2] | Well, so far IE is a no go here. I closed all IE and deleted the files. At this point it just goes to the install page and I see the "blank" box. |
Win 2000 Pro OS btw if that matters. | |
Dockimbel 16-Jun-2006 [1221] | Works well here with IE (after uninstalling previous plugin version). (WinXP SP1) |
Henrik 16-Jun-2006 [1222] | Click here to find out why links to a page which says that only IE is supported |
james_nak 16-Jun-2006 [1223x5] | Yeah I saw that and thought, "Oh, that's why." |
Back. Thought I would reboot to see if that had any effect. None, sad to say. | |
Well, I went back to FF and added rebol.com. This time it downloaded the plugins (2 files, viewdll.dll and nprbmzpl.dll) and screen changed slightly in that I no longer see all of the white box that is supposed to be red and blue. It is cut off on the top. | |
Is there a method for IE to allow sftware installs like that of FF? | |
Josh, would you be open to providing files so I can manually install and verify that it works once loaded. | |
BrianH 16-Jun-2006 [1228x4] | Is the plugin served from an HTTPS site? It would be nice to avoid man-in-the-middle attacks. I'm always a little wary of putting non-SSL sites on the trusted sites list. For that matter, when you have one site serving the html and script, and another serving the plugin, which site needs to be trusted, as far as the major browsers are concerned? I would think just the plugin serving site, but I don't quite remember right now... |
My main desktop system is running Windows Server 2003 with the browser security settings enabled. It prohibits any ActiveX controls from running in IE at all unless they come from sites on the trusted list. It won't even give you the option unless you turn off the browser security. | |
Needless to say, this makes me much more comfortable with using IE, but it isn't really practical. So I use Firefox. | |
However, it does render IE safe enough to browse shady sites. | |
Graham 16-Jun-2006 [1232x4] | Well, that was painless. |
My chat program still works... | |
Hmm. Illegal operation in plugin. | |
only in firefox and not IE. | |
Volker 16-Jun-2006 [1236] | And enable javascript in ff .. (was stupid enough to forget that. thenno auto-install) |
Allen 16-Jun-2006 [1237] | Brian. Mashups (as I'm referring to) is the common term for webapps that utilise numerous webservices and combined in the browsers. But I hope you can come up with a security method that allows us to utilise advertising, google adwords-api, flickr, amazon-api, numerous maps, calendars. etc ; without having to combine on a single server before it goes out to the clients rebol plugin. I can do all this now in a browser, but I won't be able to with a rebol-plugin? |
Volker 16-Jun-2006 [1238x2] | How would you check for a mashup? |
Instead of somebody making your machine a proxy? | |
Allen 16-Jun-2006 [1240] | security vs useful ... I know it's a tough call. Just pointing out how some of the multi-services from different domains is so common now. (just disable 3rd party cookies in your browser to see how many warning message you get) |
Volker 16-Jun-2006 [1241x3] | Btw does that mean a page from the web can access my local test-webserver? |
there is a lot of usefull without mashup. | |
And there is mashup with signed scripts. | |
Allen 16-Jun-2006 [1244] | simple question. Will a plugin be allowed to read data [get, post, or soap] from a website other than the one that the script came from? |
older newer | first last |