DNS standards say that proper FQDNs end in a dot (.) to signify the root zone.
Other names like foo.bar might or might not be evaluated relative to the local machine's search domain, depending on local configuration. They might give unexpected results after new TLDs like .box or .cloud get delegated by ICANN. This is why I try to use a trailing dot everywhere (even if others usually dont).
However, accessing pages like https://www.google.com./ with NoScript active, only offers to block or allow the "com." domain.
This would pretty much defeat the purpose of NoScript.
IMHO, https://www.google.com./ should be handled the same as https://www.google.com/
Might need careful testing if relative internal domains would be negatively affected by such a change.
FQDNs handled incorrectly
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 3:25 pm
FQDNs handled incorrectly
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0
- Giorgio Maone
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9524
- Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
- Location: Palermo - Italy
- Contact:
Re: FQDNs handled incorrectly
Do you mean they should be treated equally, but not as if they're were the same site, right?bmwiedemann wrote: IMHO, https://www.google.com./ should be handled the same as https://www.google.com/
So, in order to let google.com actually work, you should set as TRUSTED at least two entries: both .google.com. (for your top site) and .google.com (for links from google.com. to other domains or absolute URLs), correct?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:61.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/61.0
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 3:25 pm
Re: FQDNs handled incorrectly
Either way would be an improvement of the current state.
I guess, they could even be treated the same (to save me managing even more rules).
Overlap of FQDNs with private relative names will be rare
and if it happens, it should not be too bad either.
I guess, they could even be treated the same (to save me managing even more rules).
Overlap of FQDNs with private relative names will be rare
and if it happens, it should not be too bad either.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0