|
|
|
|
|
by zerognowl
3556 days ago
|
|
I have been tempted to go down the bug bounty route, but in this particular instance I might get a small win, but not contribute to the larger problem of browsers and javascript themselves. Browsers are a teeming big ball of complexity and rather than patch and forget, I would rather stick to a single duty, stripped down program like Lynx, or a hardened version of Firefox with heavy about:config tweaks. And of course, Javascript turned off at all costs. I routinely ask people on public forums to switch to Firefox and block JavaScript, and I am a firm advocate of Lynx for surfing text-based websites. I might not be able to view some websites, but that's on them. It's a webmaster's job to make a website accessible, not mine. |
|
Even getting this kind of attack mitigated in one of the major browsers makes this a much less appealing thing to try and exploit and raises awareness of the problems potentially improving everyone's security.
Putting this kind of responsibility on others makes you part of the problem, instead you could help in being the solution. That's not to say webmaster shouldn't be doing a better job at this, but sometimes their abilities are limited. I'm surprised that anyone would be willing to then as a consequence let this be inflicted on others if they had the ability to do something substantial about it.