<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: chrome protocol directory traversal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2008/01/22/chrome-protocol-directory-traversal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2008/01/22/chrome-protocol-directory-traversal/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:36:11 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: bob</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2008/01/22/chrome-protocol-directory-traversal/comment-page-1/#comment-15852</link>
		<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:59:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2008/01/22/chrome-protocol-directory-traversal/#comment-15852</guid>
		<description>clicking on a link in Thunderbird to open in Firefox does not work - I have to manually drag it onto Firefox.  

what do I do to fix it? 

Is it due to this newly discovered problem and what do I do to prevent it?

if a registry issue, where at in the registry would it be?

would reinstall of both Thunderbird and Firefox cause me to loose my settings and data?

Thank you</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>clicking on a link in Thunderbird to open in Firefox does not work &#8211; I have to manually drag it onto Firefox.  </p>
<p>what do I do to fix it? </p>
<p>Is it due to this newly discovered problem and what do I do to prevent it?</p>
<p>if a registry issue, where at in the registry would it be?</p>
<p>would reinstall of both Thunderbird and Firefox cause me to loose my settings and data?</p>
<p>Thank you</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mike</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2008/01/22/chrome-protocol-directory-traversal/comment-page-1/#comment-15805</link>
		<dc:creator>mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:24:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2008/01/22/chrome-protocol-directory-traversal/#comment-15805</guid>
		<description>NoScript is useless because you can exploit this flaw with a plain HTML code without using javascript: a simple chrome link is enough to exploit this flaw to steal data!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NoScript is useless because you can exploit this flaw with a plain HTML code without using javascript: a simple chrome link is enough to exploit this flaw to steal data!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Giorgio Maone</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2008/01/22/chrome-protocol-directory-traversal/comment-page-1/#comment-15666</link>
		<dc:creator>Giorgio Maone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:46:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2008/01/22/chrome-protocol-directory-traversal/#comment-15666</guid>
		<description>The NoScript extension prevents chrome: URIs from being loaded as scripts in content pages, effectively making this bug unexploitable no matter if the page is trusted or not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The NoScript extension prevents chrome: URIs from being loaded as scripts in content pages, effectively making this bug unexploitable no matter if the page is trusted or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
