Closed Bug 125525 Opened 19 years ago Closed 15 years ago
cc'ing Brendan, jband, Mitch, Harish on this RFE. I suspect this would involve a big effort across the browser; so is JS Engine the right place for this request?
Assignee: rogerl → khanson
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
This is nowhere near core JS engine territory -- it's a content sink issue. Phil, can you reassign? I suspect this will be "not a priority, we are accepting patches as usual" situation. /be
we don't support jscript, and we don't currently support chm, imo this has a much lower priority than that. However, perhaps we can talk with the author of the url which I selected. I think it might be value added if we decoded the source in the view source window. (I'm still almost opposed to actually running the script, although I don't mind reading it...)
> mozilla should handle this type of encoded script for maximum interoperability. Yeah, let's support VBScript, too. And ActiveX. </irony> If the author is trying to hide something and uses MSIE's properitary stuff, it's probably something we don't want to be infected with. The more that stuff is supported, the more it's used. Don't support it, let Microsoft's non-standard and wrong-guided stuff just die.
View source could decode this... if it kept track of whether it was supposedly in a script tag and had a lot of cruft added to it. This is definitely a content sink issue (ccing jst), and I would suggest simply wontfixing this bg.
This is really low priority for most of us, but hey, it's open source, so if you've got an itch, scratch it. If someone wants to contribute a patch, great. If a site uses obfuscated JS, they obviously intend it to work only on IE, so they probably also do some IE-specific DOM calls with no client-sniffer, which means that even if we unscramble these scripts they probably won't run. But again, I certainly won't object if someone wants to do it.
As Brendan said, this is not JS Engine and will undoubtedly affect more than one component. Reassigning to Browser-General until we can decide whether we want to do this or not. As stated above, if someone wants to contribute a patch, it will be reviewed -
Assignee: khanson → asa
QA Contact: pschwartau → doronr
->nobody. If someone wants to take this and work on a patch feel free to do so but there are currently no resources (that I know of) interested in making this happen.
Assignee: asa → nobody
*** Bug 230090 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 239591 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
patch for aviary branch. just for fun.
*** Bug 261417 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Component: General → DOM: HTML
Product: Mozilla Application Suite → Core
Assignee: nobody → general
QA Contact: doronr → ian
Comment on attachment 168840 [details] [diff] [review] patch This patch no longers applies.
Attachment #168840 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Looking at the patch, I don't think that we can take this code into the mozilla CVS repository. Asking Gerv for a definitive answer.
I don't think we should fix this even if we had a patch. Script obfuscation is a case of misleading content authors, at best, and we shouldn't help its (very rare) use become more common.
The license of that code is too vague and has too many uncertainties (do you have the right to modify the code, for example?) for us to take. I agree with Shaver - we don't even want to try and support this. Better an obvious "this type of script isn't supported" failure than a hard to debug problem when it hits the first IE-only construct. Gerv
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.