Re: [Asrg] whitelisting links (was Re: misconception in SPF)

Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca> Tue, 11 December 2012 04:59 UTC

Return-Path: <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16DC021F8706 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:59:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CWHBT3Puo6O4 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.mustelids.ca (unknown [174.35.130.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0F621F86FE for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.8] (otter.mustelids.ca [192.168.0.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.mustelids.ca (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2ubuntu2) with ESMTP id qBB4xUno029783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:59:31 -0500
Message-ID: <50C6BDB2.1010407@mustelids.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:59:30 -0500
From: Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: asrg@irtf.org
References: <20121206212116.10328.qmail@joyce.lan> <50C1A95A.5000001@pscs.co.uk> <50C4A7F8.3010201@dcrocker.net> <CAFdugamTbTirVV2zXKOmc9oTaCS+QiTemhT=jvYJnHYscHQK7g@mail.gmail.com> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20ACE6D0@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos> <20121209213307.D90C12429B@panix5.panix.com> <CAFduganBR_E-ui-3Xbic6F7qSmg1-Q+ideXLvb+1isLz8OF0Nw@mail.gmail.com> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20ACFFE1@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos> <50C5A9A0.105@pscs.co.uk> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD01B2@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos> <20121210145627.GA21217@gsp.org> <50C6121D.9040607@dcrocker.net>, <50C617A2.8090602@pscs.co.uk> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD5E36@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos>, <50C644F6.3090901@pscs.co.uk> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD737F@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos>
In-Reply-To: <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD737F@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] whitelisting links (was Re: misconception in SPF)
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:59:35 -0000

On 12-12-10 03:48 PM, Martijn Grooten wrote:
>>  Remember, the idea wasn't to have a 'global' list of 'good domains', but
>> ones which the *user* has whitelisted, so the user recognises them.
> 
> OK - I see what is meant now.
> 
> Still, how often does the average user visit a domain they've not visited before? For if they constantly have to approve 'new' websites, they're either going to turn the warnings off or they're going to ignore them, which defeats the point.

> Note that it is not uncommon for example.com to use iframes that load stuff from the apparently unrelated example.org. This is also commonly used by malicious sites. If a user visits a 'new' site using iframes, should such a system warn against all the domains used by the iframes?

Sounds somewhat like the "noscript" firefox plugin.  I think it works in
more than just firefox.

It won't execute javascript or iframes _unless_ you whitelist the site
they come from, either temporarily (for the current session) or
permanently.  There's a fairly well-developed mechanism for selecting
which sites you wish to whitelist.

It works pretty well.  It has the added advantage that you can, say,
visit websites and "choose" not to participate in things like
doubleclick tracking or advertisements from other sites by not approving
them.

It's truly remarkable how one URL can trigger javascript bits from
dozens of different places.

It does mean that some first-time visits to a web site can sometimes be
very noisy.   But it's less awkward than it sounds.

And you may get yourself somewhat habituated into recognizing "hey, it
threw alerts on a site that didn't before.  Oh gee, different spelling".

I use it.