LeverOne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. As I understand it, the latest fix does not
> solve the problem of differentiation between the
> block's delimiter and the object's literal, but it
> converts a JSReg-break in a syntax error, which is
> not dangerous.
>
> for(;{}/1/1;){} --> for
> (;{}/(?:)/.$constructor$(/1/)1;){} // Syntax
> error
> 1/{}/alert(1)/1 -->
> 1/{}/(?:)/.$constructor$(/alert(1)/)1 // etc
>
> I hope you clean it in the future.
Yeah it's eliminates the difference between divide and regex by raising a syntax error because the regex is rewritten to force an error if it's used in a divide operation. Mike from the caja project pointed this idea out in caja and I thought it would be useful to apply here. Hopefully I can find a better fix
>
> 2. Non-FF browsers
>
> var x
> 1
> /'lo/,alert(parent.location)//'
>
Fixed this thanks
>
> I have not watched the whole the changes yet.
>
> 3. /[]/]/ <-- this works in IE8 Standards mode
> too (tested on IE9) and fixed in IE9 Standards
> mode (blogpost).
Ah thanks, I'll update the post. I thought it was 8 for some reason
> 4. // I don't know how to thank...
>
> I must confess that I don't testing of filters,
> sandboxes and millions of other protections, as it
> might seem. My activity - it is just small reward
> for your ideas that you share with the world for
> many years, but not the result of your refined
> trolling ~ a year ago. :)) Otherwise, I would come
> to the party faster, does not it?
> Thank you!
Hehe well thanks very much! It's very appreciated
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.";
labs : [
www.businessinfo.co.uk]
blog : [
www.thespanner.co.uk]
Hackvertor : [
hackvertor.co.uk]