tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3650259870998252242.post1372210369473171347..comments2011-12-17T12:53:11.122+01:00Comments on the world. according to koto: New Facebook clickjacking attack in the wild - fb....Krzysztof Kotowiczhttps://profiles.google.com/111743409761183951147noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3650259870998252242.post-27672300861593483222011-12-17T12:53:11.123+01:002011-12-17T12:53:11.123+01:00I like the script, thank you for sharingI like the script, thank you for sharingRegex84noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3650259870998252242.post-21477535896572900162010-06-05T12:37:30.615+02:002010-06-05T12:37:30.615+02:00@nineza
Yeah, it looks silly but nevertheless thi...@nineza<br /><br />Yeah, it looks silly but nevertheless this particular naive clickjacking attack succeeded back then. Many people clicked the button - of course FB did not publish any statistics, butit was popular among my friends and it was big enough to trigger blogosphere attention. <br /><br />Just try to imagine what would happen if this was more elaborate.Krzysztof Kotowiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11516786094492717236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3650259870998252242.post-34149617455689853962010-06-05T06:58:24.495+02:002010-06-05T06:58:24.495+02:00Well, that's nice of us being able to be hacke...Well, that's nice of us being able to be hacked.<br /><br />But seriously, that is a POOR attempt at confusing people. That would hardly confuse anyone, you can see the other boxes have random letters, and that just HAPPENS to have a proper 5 letter word called "Share", with the exact same background colour as the Facebook share button...<br /><br />Meh, oh well. But they could've atleast BOTHERED to do SOMETHING to make it look better.<br />Not saying they should've though, otherwise facebook would be even more spread with this. xD<br /><br />But that IS a poor attempt to be honest...Ninezahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15052035932229031097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3650259870998252242.post-69203587811153609662009-12-25T01:59:57.969+01:002009-12-25T01:59:57.969+01:00@anonymous
Actually, this time IE behaves correct...@anonymous<br /><br />Actually, this time IE behaves correctly. Firefox and Chrome are too forgiving for the invalid HTML syntax used in the document.<br /><br />If you look closely in the last code snippet in the article the DIV is not closed (first line) so the IFRAME element shouldn't be interpreted at all. FF/Chrome fix it silently and the iframe gets displayed.Krzysztof Kotowiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11516786094492717236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3650259870998252242.post-33674311747681377622009-12-24T21:28:47.960+01:002009-12-24T21:28:47.960+01:00haha wait, it doesn't work in IE because IE ty...haha wait, it doesn't work in IE because IE typically does not comply with most regulations? thats a new one lmaoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3650259870998252242.post-7043951715355934672009-12-23T10:09:26.955+01:002009-12-23T10:09:26.955+01:00Thanks for great infoThanks for great infowarrioRRhttp://www.wasi620.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3650259870998252242.post-63449227750290791222009-12-23T02:20:43.833+01:002009-12-23T02:20:43.833+01:00thanks for the write upthanks for the write upTom Brennanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17763780984670281558noreply@blogger.com