Comments on: Safari for Windows, 0day exploit in 2 hours http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/ Me, myself and I Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:42:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: TimWeb » Windows Safari http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/#comment-34851 TimWeb » Windows Safari Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:05:43 +0000 http://test.larholm.com/?p=14#comment-34851 [...] June 13th: Apparently there have already been several vulnerabilities found in [...] [...] June 13th: Apparently there have already been several vulnerabilities found in [...]

]]> By: klee http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/#comment-32698 klee Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:58:30 +0000 http://test.larholm.com/?p=14#comment-32698 Yeah. Windows versions has lots of bugs that are fixed after some time. Like this one, found recently: <a href='http://anotherquirk.blogspot.com/2008/10/safari-submit-back-submit-oops.html' rel="nofollow">Safari: submit, back, submit... ooops</a> Yeah. Windows versions has lots of bugs that are fixed after some time. Like this one, found recently:

Safari: submit, back, submit… ooops

]]> By: ????? http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/#comment-29588 ????? Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:52:15 +0000 http://test.larholm.com/?p=14#comment-29588 I find it amusing that a security flaw discovered by Mr Larholm has an effect of an ego hit to the immature apple fanboyz. I find it amusing that a security flaw discovered by Mr Larholm has an effect of an ego hit to the immature apple fanboyz.

]]> By: Larholm.com - Me, myself and I » Silverlight 1.0 Release Candidate http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/#comment-2274 Larholm.com - Me, myself and I » Silverlight 1.0 Release Candidate Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:40:29 +0000 http://test.larholm.com/?p=14#comment-2274 [...] speaking, this has not been a threat to a lot of people. Unlike the Safari 3.0 release for Windows, which received millions of end user installations after being featured [...] [...] speaking, this has not been a threat to a lot of people. Unlike the Safari 3.0 release for Windows, which received millions of end user installations after being featured [...]

]]> By: Browser Wars: Internet Explorer continues to Lose Share to Firefox, What’s Safari? | The Marketing Technology Blog http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/#comment-1967 Browser Wars: Internet Explorer continues to Lose Share to Firefox, What’s Safari? | The Marketing Technology Blog Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:48:39 +0000 http://test.larholm.com/?p=14#comment-1967 [...] Safari hasn’t even made any impact, even with its attempt to push into the Windows market. Perhaps part of Safari’s problems are the immediate and embarrassing security issues that were uncovered within 2 hours of it’s download by Lar Holm. [...] [...] Safari hasn’t even made any impact, even with its attempt to push into the Windows market. Perhaps part of Safari’s problems are the immediate and embarrassing security issues that were uncovered within 2 hours of it’s download by Lar Holm. [...]

]]> By: GeekBrief.TV | Video Podcast » Archive » GBTV #0182 | GeekBrief.TV http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/#comment-1567 GeekBrief.TV | Video Podcast » Archive » GBTV #0182 | GeekBrief.TV Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:19:30 +0000 http://test.larholm.com/?p=14#comment-1567 [...] Safari for Windows, 0day exploit in 2 hours Source: Larholm.com [...] [...] Safari for Windows, 0day exploit in 2 hours Source: Larholm.com [...]

]]> By: More Mozilla Security Flaws!! at M and L Adventures http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/#comment-1343 More Mozilla Security Flaws!! at M and L Adventures Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:55:42 +0000 http://test.larholm.com/?p=14#comment-1343 [...] on this one, don’t think Safari doesn’t suffer from similar problems with security. Larholm.com found a security vulnerability in Safari 3 for Windows within 2 hours of it being launched by Apple [...] [...] on this one, don’t think Safari doesn’t suffer from similar problems with security. Larholm.com found a security vulnerability in Safari 3 for Windows within 2 hours of it being launched by Apple [...]

]]> By: Safari pentru Windows - vulnerabil ? | ikon media factory http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/#comment-1046 Safari pentru Windows - vulnerabil ? | ikon media factory Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:16:34 +0000 http://test.larholm.com/?p=14#comment-1046 [...] danez Thor Larholm a fost printre cei care au raportat o problem? în nou? versiune a Safari. Acesta sus?ine c? a [...] [...] danez Thor Larholm a fost printre cei care au raportat o problem? în nou? versiune a Safari. Acesta sus?ine c? a [...]

]]> By: Safarin pentru Windows | ikon media factory http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/#comment-1045 Safarin pentru Windows | ikon media factory Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:33:40 +0000 http://test.larholm.com/?p=14#comment-1045 [...] danez Thor Larholm a fost printre cei care au raportat o problem? în nou? versiune a Safari. Acesta sus?ine c? a [...] [...] danez Thor Larholm a fost printre cei care au raportat o problem? în nou? versiune a Safari. Acesta sus?ine c? a [...]

]]> By: Random Reader http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/#comment-1023 Random Reader Mon, 23 Jul 2007 02:02:56 +0000 http://test.larholm.com/?p=14#comment-1023 I just came back to this because I discovered, during the recent buzz over the same kind of issue in IE in Firefox, that URIs passed to protocol handlers are actually <a href="http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa767914.aspx" rel="nofollow"><i>meant</i> to be unescaped</a>. So my previous conclusion in comment #135 is wrong: this issue is (was) squarely on Firefox! I just came back to this because I discovered, during the recent buzz over the same kind of issue in IE in Firefox, that URIs passed to protocol handlers are actually meant to be unescaped.

So my previous conclusion in comment #135 is wrong: this issue is (was) squarely on Firefox!

]]>