XUL Talk:Remote XUL bugs: Difference between revisions

From MozillaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Moved from main page)
 
(fixed)
Line 1: Line 1:
(Jocelyn Raymond) Remove Privilege or Remote Privilege?  I am not sure, but perhaps the title has a typo.  I came from [http://wiki.mozilla.org/XUL:Priority_List] where it says for anyone to discuss "Remote" XUL application to come here.  Anyway, I would like to add some discussion on remote XUL here (feel free to re-direct this if necessary). (Please, excuse my English , I am French). 
(Jocelyn Raymond)
 
First, I have been looking at XUL for about a year and build actual XUL application for the past 6 months.  All future XUL applications that I must build have to be remote (like the first one I builded).  Moreover, all XUL applications that I will be building are for our intranet (or in-house applications).  Thus the problem of "privileged" tasks/resources is important to me.  I will get right to the point and please do correct/expend this if you can.
First, I have been looking at XUL for about a year and build actual XUL application for the past 6 months.  All future XUL applications that I must build have to be remote (like the first one I builded).  Moreover, all XUL applications that I will be building are for our intranet (or in-house applications).  Thus the problem of "privileged" tasks/resources is important to me.  I will get right to the point and please do correct/expend this if you can.


Revision as of 01:41, 15 December 2006

(Jocelyn Raymond) First, I have been looking at XUL for about a year and build actual XUL application for the past 6 months. All future XUL applications that I must build have to be remote (like the first one I builded). Moreover, all XUL applications that I will be building are for our intranet (or in-house applications). Thus the problem of "privileged" tasks/resources is important to me. I will get right to the point and please do correct/expend this if you can.

What I would like to see for remote XUL application is the ability to add in the preference "signed.applets.codebase_principal_support" (or perhaps a specific privilege such as XPConnect) a domain[/path] (where [/path] means is optional).

Thus, if I could add this preference, it would essentially mean "Any XUL application coming from www.mydomain.com/path/to/my/app is granted XPConnect". Of course, this is not useful for anyone that wish to develop for an unknown audience (such as the internet), but only for secure controlled intranet.

Would something like this be feasible? Would it be secure enough?

Of course, I think the best is to sign our remote XUL application which I did without success (i.e. the signed code was treated as if it was invalid so I must have done something wrong along the way). There is much more I would like to say but not sure this is the appropriate place.

(Hans Harder) Signing remote XUL applications sounds nice, but how about dynamic remote XUL application, in other words how do I sign XUL applications which are dynamicly generated by remote perl scripts ?

Retrieved from "https://wiki.allizom.org/index.php?title=XUL_Talk:Remote_XUL_bugs&oldid=44657"