[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Maybe Firfox isn't the best choice for privacy?

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Maybe Firfox isn't the best choice for privacy?
From: phobos@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:21:05 -0500
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:21:10 -0500
In-reply-to: <20080214165442.0279e618@xxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20080214161752.1cd3996b@xxxxxxxxx> <1513.85.18.24.140.1203002721.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080214165442.0279e618@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:54:42PM +0100, kazaam@xxxxxxxxx wrote 0.7K bytes in 18 lines about:
: Yes but the true magic of this method is working without JS, just with xhtml as I understood it? So it would also detect you using torbutton and calculate the hash on serverside for you.

Well, the example html file requires the <script> tags to be parsed by
javascript. With javascript disabled, the example as shown, won't work.

-- 
Andrew

References:
- Maybe Firfox isn't the best choice for privacy?
  - From: kazaam
- Re: Maybe Firfox isn't the best choice for privacy?
  - From: Marco Bonetti
- Re: Maybe Firfox isn't the best choice for privacy?
  - From: kazaam

Prev by Author: Re: iptables and tor
Next by Author: Re: .onion sites fail to load with: (waiting for rendezvous desc)
Previous by thread: Re: Maybe Firfox isn't the best choice for privacy?
Next by thread: Re: Maybe Firfox isn't the best choice for privacy?
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread