User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041001 Firefox/0.10.1
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041001 Firefox/0.10.1
If you visit http://www.sport4fun.com/it and then from the location bar you open
hattrick.org, the links on this site that have as target the central frame, will
open on _top. Even with firefox 1.0.
Steps to Reproduce:
1.type in the location bar http://www.sport4fun.com/it and open it
2.type in the location bar www.hattrick.org and open it
3.click on the link "-Gamemaster »" on the left menu
the link will open on top
it should open in the frame "main"
The problem i probably caused by this line:
in sport4fun.com/it that conflicts with:
<A HREF="cheatreport.asp?" style="font-weight: normal" target="main">Gamemaster
So.. how do we solve this problem? Should we clear script-set window.name on
page traversals? What does IE do, I wonder?
MSIE6/winxpsp2 does the same thing as we do strangely enough.
AFAIK this is the first time this obvious issue has ever been raised, and AFAIK
all browsers have had the same problem since, what, 1998? It makes sense to me
to set a window's name to the zero-length string any time it changes domains.
I don't know about changing the name of the windows when we load new pages into
the window, but maybe we should make changes to window.name only go into the DOM
object, and we'd reset that on pageload?
It's unclear to me that this should become a stop ship bug. Since dan and jesse
got cc'ed, can someone elaborate if this is a security issue? Time is running
out for this bug which seems to have been idle since January.
Leaving the nomination alone for right now pending some more information.
not a blocker until someone provides a compelling reason to take this so late in
I believe it's a security bug to allow one site to affect where another site's
window.open() calls put content. We have all sorts of checks to prevent just
that, and this bug is about a way for a site to completely bypass all those checks.
Of course I don't know whether that's a compelling reason, since I'm not clear
what our blocker criteria are at this point.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 821080 ***