[FF 4.0b7 NS 2.0.5rc3] Further questions on ABE messages
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:54 am
Good day.
I was trying to find more information on the ABE messages logged in the console, from the site FAQs to the manual, but failed to find one that details the format of the message. I'm particularly interested on the details of <message> contained in
I somehow deduce, if it is correct, that the relationship between <func> <site1> <<< <site2> is that <site2> made the resource request to <site1> using the function <func>. With this deduction I'm able to see how the rules affect requests in between sites, and from there determine the appropriate adjustments to make. However, it seems this deduction is premature without knowing the complete details of the entire <message>, as taking for example this message log:
Going by my deduction, this request should not have been anonymized and logged by ABE because both sites specified in <func> <site1> <<< <site2> will be matched by my regex rule, and thus allowed. But this is not the case, and it seems that the succeeding details (about:blank, about:blank - 7) affected this match.
Also, ABE intercepts browser-internal url resource requests to sites that are matched by the ABE ruleset, as can be seen here:
My questions would be:
(1) Where can one find more details on ABE messages?
(2) Why did the first case not match the same site request, and how did the other parameters of the message affect this match?
(3) Seeing that ABE can match browser-internal url resource request to sites, would it be safe to allow such urls? If they are benign, being internals of the browser, then why would NoScript intercept such requests? There may be some subtle security concerns over this that I am not aware of, which I would be very glad to know.
I was trying to find more information on the ABE messages logged in the console, from the site FAQs to the manual, but failed to find one that details the format of the message. I'm particularly interested on the details of <message> contained in
Code: Select all
Anonymize on { <message> }Code: Select all
[ABE] <^https?://(?:\w*\.)*google\.com(?:\.\w{2})?/.*> Anonymize on {GET https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=datasummary&passive=900&continue=https://www.google.com/dashboard/<snip>.cache.html&followup=https://www.google.com/dashboard/<snip>.cache.html <<< https://www.google.com/dashboard/<snip>.cache.html, about:blank, about:blank - 7}
USER rule:
Site ^https?://(?:\w*\.)*google\.com(?:\.\w{2})?/.*
Accept from ^https?://(?:\w*\.)*google\.com(?:\.\w{2})?/.*
Anonymize
Also, ABE intercepts browser-internal url resource requests to sites that are matched by the ABE ruleset, as can be seen here:
Code: Select all
[ABE] <^https?://(?:\w*\.)*google\.com(?:\.\w{2})?/.*> Anonymize on {GET https://www.google.com/dashboard/<snip>.cache.html <<< about:blank, about:blank - 7}
USER rule:
Site ^https?://(?:\w*\.)*google\.com(?:\.\w{2})?/.*
Accept from ^https?://(?:\w*\.)*google\.com(?:\.\w{2})?/.*
Anonymize
(1) Where can one find more details on ABE messages?
(2) Why did the first case not match the same site request, and how did the other parameters of the message affect this match?
(3) Seeing that ABE can match browser-internal url resource request to sites, would it be safe to allow such urls? If they are benign, being internals of the browser, then why would NoScript intercept such requests? There may be some subtle security concerns over this that I am not aware of, which I would be very glad to know.
